OT. Hunter Biden Indicted

[Dean Hoffman]

on federal gun charges.
<https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-indicted-federal-gun-charges-rcna39623>
The article describes the charges as historic.

[hub...@ccanoemail.com]

I hope the Dems have a cracker-jack candidate waiting in the wings
- Sleepy Joe's base will look on this more critically than
the Stable Genius's loyal band of idiots view HIS crimes.
Just wait for Trump to get elected so he can pardon all the
Jan 6 rioters ...
John T.

[Dean Hoffman]

I think Trump said something about pardoning himself if elected. That would keep the lawyers and judges busy.

[hub...@ccanoemail.com]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 16:57:42 -0700 (PDT), Dean Hoffman
<dean...@gmail.com> wrote:

That would keep the lawyers and judges silent.
John T.

[T]

Notice how all the charges do not link to his father.
Hmmmmmm.

[rbowman]

Look! A squirrel! I wonder if Hunter agreed to take one for the team? It's
like the old joke about two people in grizzly country. "Can you run faster
than a bear?" "No, but I only have to run faster than you?"

[Peeler]

On 15 Sep 2023 03:47:32 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> Look! A squirrel! I wonder if Hunter agreed to take one for the team? It's
> like the old joke about two people in grizzly country. "Can you run faster
> than a bear?" "No, but I only have to run faster than you?"

Look! A typical bigmouthed Trumptard! It's lowbrowwoman herself, of course.
LOL

--
Yet another thrilling account from the resident senile superhero's senile
life:
"I went to a Driveby Truckers concert at a local venue and they made me
leave my knife in the car. Never went back. Come to think of it the Truckers
had a Black Lives Matter banner. Never bought any of their music again
either."
MID: <k84ip9...@mid.individual.net>

[Skid Marks]

It seems likely that Hunter carried illegally while at the White House and maybe while at the Capitol too.
Imagine if a J6 tourist had been carrying.

Rules for thee but not for me.

[Frank]

Many think this was a sacrificial charge creating a smoke screen for the
tax charges involving the big guy. Justice department will flaunt that
they charged Hunter in spite of his father being president and then slow
walk the tax charges.

[trader_4]

It's a good question why just the gun charges? Where are the tax charges?
Only think I see is that they only had a few more weeks before the statute of
limitations runs out on the gun charges. But still they were investigating all
of this for years, they had a plea deal. So why can't they file the tax charges
already or hold off on these for another week or two?

And if the Republicans want Hunter treated like anyone else, then the gun charges
are an example where he's not being treated like an ordinary person. It's rare for
lying on a gun form to result in any charges at all. Years ago I looked and something
like 90K people had failed the federal background check when trying to buy a gun.
Basically two main ways to fail, one is to have a felony record, the other is to have
been declared a nut by a court. So it's reasonable to assume that a majority of
those lied on the form, just like Hunter. Something like 50 were prosecuted and
probably most of them had other crimes involved, this was just an add-on. This
is also interesting because the people with all the new ideas about banning guns
aren't demanding that these people be prosecuted. And when they go to arrest
them, good chance they will find other crimes, like they're carrying drugs, because
criminals tend to be criminals. So it could help reduce crime, but the feds just
aren't interested.

[trader_4]

We don't have to imagine because it actually happened:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/capitol-rioter-armed-gun-jan-6-found-guilty-charges-rcna80387

Capitol rioter who was armed with gun on Jan. 6 found guilty on all charges
Christopher Alberts had a gun on his hip when he charged up the stairs of the Capitol on Jan. 6, and he later yelled at police officers before he was arrested.


https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/indiana-man-pleads-guilty-carrying-gun-and-assaulting-law-enforcement-officers-jan-6

Indiana Man Pleads Guilty to Carrying a Gun and Assaulting Law Enforcement Officers in Jan. 6 Capitol Breach
Firearm Was Loaded with Shotgun Shells and Hollow-Point Bullets

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/08/jan6-defendants-guns/


Also we had testimony that Trump asked for metal detectors to be removed at
his rally. Told that they needed to screen for security, he said that's OK, they aren't
here to hurt me. And then guys like Mr. T claim there was no insurrection, because
there were no weapons.

[trader_4]

Certainly possible, though for it to work they would have to stall past the
election, which seems difficult. We'll know
soon enough, if they don't charge in the next month, then I would agree,
something is very wrong. They have investigated for years, they cut a plea
deal, so it should be very easy to draw up an indictment. I suppose they
could claim that they found new information, so now more investigating is
needed.

IMO the bigger risk here for Biden is the impeachment inquiry. They will be
going after bank records and such, following the money and unlike the DOJ
they are looking to uncover the truth. The tax trial, it's DOJ on one side, Hunter
on the other, so I don't see anything new or shocking coming out of that.
In fact, if I was Joe Biden, I would have told the idiot son to work out a plea
deal. I still don't understand why he backed out of the existing one over the
issue of not having immunity from possible prosecution for other crimes,
eg registering as a foreign agent. Sure, it would have been sweet for him if
that plea deal went through and he got that immunity. But when that wasn't
happening, what's the point to not taking the deal anyway? It was still a good
deal, no jail time likely, diversion on the gun charges. Instead he's going to
trial on all of it now and he's clearly as guilty as they come, he's going to have
multiple felony convictions. So I really don't get it. Pops can pardon him,
but still the plea deal sure looks far better and cheaper too. What am I missing?

[Ed P]

"Seems likely" is not evidence. Your fantasy is of no value.

[Cindy Hamilton]

On 2023-09-15, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:30:04 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
>> On 9/14/23 15:44, Dean Hoffman wrote:
>> > on federal gun charges.
>> > <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-indicted-federal-gun-charges-rcna39623>
>> > The article describes the charges as historic.
>> Notice how all the charges do not link to his father.
>> Hmmmmmm.
>
> It's a good question why just the gun charges? Where are the tax charges?

"Special counsel David Weiss subsequently withdrew the two tax charges
in Delaware with the intention of bringing them in California and
Washington, D.C. -- the venues where the alleged misconduct occurred."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-bidens-indictment-stopped-gun-charges-coming/story?id=103203043

--
Cindy Hamilton

[Scott Lurndal]

trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:
>On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 7:16:06=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
>> On 9/14/2023 6:44 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:=20
>> > on federal gun charges.=20
>> > <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-indicted-f=
>ederal-gun-charges-rcna39623>=20

>> > The article describes the charges as historic.

>> Many think this was a sacrificial charge creating a smoke screen for the=
>=20
>> tax charges involving the big guy. Justice department will flaunt that=20
>> they charged Hunter in spite of his father being president and then slow=
>=20

>> walk the tax charges.
>
>Certainly possible, though for it to work they would have to stall past the
>election, which seems difficult. We'll know
>soon enough, if they don't charge in the next month, then I would agree,

>something is very wrong. They have investigated for years, they cut a ple=

>a
>deal, so it should be very easy to draw up an indictment. I suppose they
>could claim that they found new information, so now more investigating is
>needed.
>

>IMO the bigger risk here for Biden is the impeachment inquiry. They will b=

>e
>going after bank records and such, following the money and unlike the DOJ

>they are looking to uncover the truth. The tax trial, it's DOJ on one side=

>, Hunter
>on the other, so I don't see anything new or shocking coming out of that.

>In fact, if I was Joe Biden, I would have told the idiot son to work out a =
>plea
>deal. I still don't understand why he backed out of the existing one over =

>the
>issue of not having immunity from possible prosecution for other crimes,

>eg registering as a foreign agent. Sure, it would have been sweet for him =
>if
>that plea deal went through and he got that immunity. But when that wasn'=
>t
>happening, what's the point to not taking the deal anyway? It was still a =
>good
>deal, no jail time likely, diversion on the gun charges. Instead he's goin=
>g to
>trial on all of it now and he's clearly as guilty as they come, he's going =
>to have
>multiple felony convictions. So I really don't get it. Pops can pardon h=
>im,
>but still the plea deal sure looks far better and cheaper too. What am I m=
>issing?

Do the crime, do the time.

It's interesting to note that the 5th circuit has ruled the particular
charge (buying a gun as a drug user) as unconstitutional...

[Jim Joyce]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:06:23 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
wrote:

>IMO the bigger risk here for Biden is the impeachment inquiry. They will be
>going after bank records and such, following the money and unlike the DOJ
>they are looking to uncover the truth. The tax trial, it's DOJ on one side, Hunter
>on the other, so I don't see anything new or shocking coming out of that.
>In fact, if I was Joe Biden, I would have told the idiot son to work out a plea
>deal.

That makes no sense. Hunter Biden's legal team and the DOJ *did* work out a plea
deal, but the judge assigned to the case picked it apart and it collapsed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/us/politics/inside-hunter-biden-plea-deal.html

Besides, plea deals don't come from defendants, they come from prosecutors.

>I still don't understand why he backed out of the existing one over the

He didn't back out.

>issue of not having immunity from possible prosecution for other crimes,
>eg registering as a foreign agent. Sure, it would have been sweet for him if
>that plea deal went through and he got that immunity. But when that wasn't
>happening, what's the point to not taking the deal anyway?

At that point there was no deal, so there was nothing to 'take'.

>It was still a good
>deal, no jail time likely, diversion on the gun charges. Instead he's going to
>trial on all of it now and he's clearly as guilty as they come, he's going to have
>multiple felony convictions. So I really don't get it. Pops can pardon him,
>but still the plea deal sure looks far better and cheaper too. What am I missing?

You're missing the fact that the defense didn't kill the plea deal.

[T]

And when the antifa fascists attacked the white
house and tried to literally burn Trump out,
all those arrested had their charges dropped.
Hmmmmmmmm

Maybe we should replace the star field on our
flag with a banana and rename the country "The
Banana People's Republic of Amerika" and
have a national anthem for every race.
Oh and move our founding date to 1984.

[Frank]

The Biden DOJ just like it will slow walk the tax charges will slow walk
disclosure of files for Biden impeachment inquiry. You can bet on it.

[rbowman]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:29:28 GMT, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> It's interesting to note that the 5th circuit has ruled the particular
> charge (buying a gun as a drug user) as unconstitutional...

That should be revisited. The problem is many states have legalized
marijuana but from the Federal viewpoint they are illegally using a
controlled substance.

f. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any
depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal
law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized
for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

d. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court,
of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have
imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter
sentence including probation?

Splitting the hair between marijuana use in the state of legal residence
and being a screaming meth head would be interesting.

[rbowman]

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 05:46:30 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> And if the Republicans want Hunter treated like anyone else, then the
> gun charges are an example where he's not being treated like an ordinary
> person. It's rare for lying on a gun form to result in any charges at
> all. Years ago I looked and something like 90K people had failed the
> federal background check when trying to buy a gun. Basically two main
> ways to fail, one is to have a felony record, the other is to have been
> declared a nut by a court. So it's reasonable to assume that a
> majority of those lied on the form, just like Hunter.

I've been waiting for the ATF to redesign the form so the 'correct' answer
to one of the questions is 'yes' other than 21a.

[Peeler]

On 15 Sep 2023 17:12:11 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> I've been waiting for the ATF to redesign the form so the 'correct' answer
> to one of the questions is 'yes' other than 21a.

Have you? That's fascinating. Just like everything else about you, Trumper.

--
More of the resident senile gossip's absolutely idiotic endless blather
about herself:
"My family and I traveled cross country in '52, going out on the northern
route and returning mostly on Rt 66. We also traveled quite a bit as the
interstates were being built. It might have been slower but it was a lot
more interesting. Even now I prefer what William Least Heat-Moon called
the blue highways but it's difficult. Around here there are remnants of
the Mullan Road as frontage roads but I-90 was laid over most of it so
there is no continuous route. So far 93 hasn't been destroyed."
MID: <kae9iv...@mid.individual.net>

[Peeler]

On 15 Sep 2023 17:06:59 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

I suppose you didn't copy & paste this shit but brilliantly squeezed it out
of your genius head, just like the many multi-digital numbers you obviously
learned by heart and never quickly look up on the Internet to brag about
them in these groups. <VBG>

--
Yet more of the abnormal senile gossiping by the resident senile gossip:
"I never understood how they made a living but the space where the local
party store was is now up for lease. It probably was more than helium. I
often walk over the the adjacent market to get something for dinner and
people stuffing balloons in their cars was a common sight. No more. I've
no idea if there is another store in town."
MID: <kafs2nF...@mid.individual.net>

[Skid Marks]

T wrote:
> On 9/15/23 03:09, Skid Marks wrote:
>> T wrote:
>>> On 9/14/23 15:44, Dean Hoffman wrote:
>>>> on federal gun charges.
>>>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-indicted-federal-gun-charges-rcna39623>
>>>>     The article describes the charges as historic.
>>>
>>> Notice how all the charges do not link to his father.
>>> Hmmmmmm.
>>
>> It seems likely that Hunter carried illegally while at the White House and maybe while at the Capitol too.
>> Imagine if a J6 tourist had been carrying.
>>
>> Rules for thee but not for me.
>
>
> And when the antifa fascists attacked the white
> house and tried to literally burn Trump out,
> all those arrested had their charges dropped.
> Hmmmmmmmm
>

Excellent point!

[Skid Marks]

There are real Republicans and there are RINOs. The RINOs are actually Democrats. Democrats are innately deceptive.

[Ed P]

You are confused. There are real Republicans and there are MAGA cult
members. The MAGA people want to make their leader a dictator.

[bud--]

To prosecute crimes in federal jurisdictions outside his (Delaware)
Weiss needed special prosecutor status, which he recently got from Garland.

[Bob F]

On 9/15/2023 7:51 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On 2023-09-15, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 10:30:04 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
>>> On 9/14/23 15:44, Dean Hoffman wrote:
>>>> on federal gun charges.
>>>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-indicted-federal-gun-charges-rcna39623>
>>>> The article describes the charges as historic.
>>> Notice how all the charges do not link to his father.
>>> Hmmmmmm.
>>
>> It's a good question why just the gun charges? Where are the tax charges?
>

He settled with the IRS, and paid the taxes and penalties years ago.

[Bob F]

RINOS are actually the few Repubs left with an ounce of common sense.

>
>
> You are confused.  There are real Republicans and there are MAGA cult
> members.  The MAGA people want to make their leader a dictator.

And they specialize in assaulting, threatening, and murdering anyone
that does not agree with their outrageous lies.

[trader_4]

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, Jim Joyce wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:06:23 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
> >IMO the bigger risk here for Biden is the impeachment inquiry. They will be
> >going after bank records and such, following the money and unlike the DOJ
> >they are looking to uncover the truth. The tax trial, it's DOJ on one side, Hunter
> >on the other, so I don't see anything new or shocking coming out of that.
> >In fact, if I was Joe Biden, I would have told the idiot son to work out a plea
> >deal.
> That makes no sense. Hunter Biden's legal team and the DOJ *did* work out a plea
> deal, but the judge assigned to the case picked it apart and it collapsed.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/us/politics/inside-hunter-biden-plea-deal.html
>

Yes, when the judge asked if it did, the DOJ said no, Hunter;s lawyers said yes. That
lead to a period where the two sides had an opportunity to resolve it and Hunter's
lawyer was heard saying that if immunity was not in it, then rip it up.
It's extremely unlikely that the DOJ went from a sweetheart deal for Hunter to refusing
any plea deal at all. They were happy with what was in there, absent that disagreement.
There were some other minor issues, like the agreement put the judge in the position
of deciding if Hunter would be charged in the future, the judge objected to that, but
that's not some huge hurdle barring a revised plea deal.

> Besides, plea deals don't come from defendants, they come from prosecutors.

Often they are negotiated between the two sides as this one was.

> >I still don't understand why he backed out of the existing one over the
> He didn't back out.

Technically that's correct, so amend that to that the one big issue was whether
the deal provided immunity against future prosecution or not. The judge finally
rejected it because of a bizarre technicality, it had a provision where she would be
the one to decide if Hunter had violated it and should face future prosecution.
That kind of issue surely could be resolved. Whether you get immunity or not
would seem to be the big sticking point. Hunter could have just said, OK, leave
it out and the DOJ wouldn't have a problem with it, yet there was no new deal.
Yet they could not reach a new deal. I find it hard to believe that was because
of DOJ, they didn't have to give up anything, it was Hunter that would have had
to agree to give up the future immunity. What other issues do you think there
were?

> >issue of not having immunity from possible prosecution for other crimes,
> >eg registering as a foreign agent. Sure, it would have been sweet for him if
> >that plea deal went through and he got that immunity. But when that wasn't
> >happening, what's the point to not taking the deal anyway?
> At that point there was no deal, so there was nothing to 'take'.

But they had the opportunity to simply revise that agreement knowing what issues
the judge objected to.

> >It was still a good
> >deal, no jail time likely, diversion on the gun charges. Instead he's going to
> >trial on all of it now and he's clearly as guilty as they come, he's going to have
> >multiple felony convictions. So I really don't get it. Pops can pardon him,
> >but still the plea deal sure looks far better and cheaper too. What am I missing?
> You're missing the fact that the defense didn't kill the plea deal.

They mostly did, their position was "rip it up" upon hearing that DOJ believed it
did not give immunity from future prosecution. And BTW, that's a good example
of what DOJ tried to pull to help Hunter. Put in some BS verbiage, that wasn't
entirely clear, which the judge caught, where Hunter could claim later that he was
given immunity. If you look at where the issues were, it fell apart over that and
that the judge would be the decider about future prosecution if Hunter violated it.
It seems very reasonable that had Hunter said forget the immunity the deal could
have been revised.

[trader_4]

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:59:11 AM UTC-4, T wrote:
> On 9/15/23 03:09, Skid Marks wrote:
> > T wrote:
> >> On 9/14/23 15:44, Dean Hoffman wrote:
> >>> on federal gun charges.
> >>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-indicted-federal-gun-charges-rcna39623>
> >>> The article describes the charges as historic.
> >>
> >> Notice how all the charges do not link to his father.
> >> Hmmmmmm.
> >
> > It seems likely that Hunter carried illegally while at the White House
> > and maybe while at the Capitol too.
> > Imagine if a J6 tourist had been carrying.
> >
> > Rules for thee but not for me.
> And when the antifa fascists attacked the white
> house and tried to literally burn Trump out,
> all those arrested had their charges dropped.
> Hmmmmmmmm

First time I've ever heard of this, my BS detector just went off.
Unbelievable. Even on right wing radio, full of loons, I've never heard
this before. Link?

>
> Maybe we should replace the star field on our
> flag with a banana and rename the country "The
> Banana People's Republic of Amerika" and
> have a national anthem for every race.
> Oh and move our founding date to 1984.

We'll have to do that if Trump gets back into office, with a date
of 2017.

[trader_4]

The problem is IDK how you can be a regular Republican anymore when the
party is fully controlled by the Trump cult. That's why I removed my name from
the Republican registration halfway through Trump's first term. I had seen
enough. Interestingly, though I was a lifelong Republican, I didn't get anything
from the RNC asking what happened, why I left. Another sign that they just
want to live in a vacuum.

[trader_4]

WTF? Are you not aware that tax charges for two years of failing to pay taxes
was part of the plea deal that collapsed? He actually had a couple of more years
too, but DOJ took three years to investigate so the statute of limitations had
passed. That's what you get when you're the president's son. Are you going to
tell us that would have been the case with Joe Six pack, who didn't file returns
on millions in income?

[Frank]

He eats the shit his party feeds him.

[Scott Lurndal]

Yes, that was noted in the court documents for the plea deal. They're available
on-line.

[Scott Lurndal]

trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:
>On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:59:11=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, T wrote:
>> On 9/15/23 03:09, Skid Marks wrote:=20
>> > T wrote:=20
>> >> On 9/14/23 15:44, Dean Hoffman wrote:=20
>> >>> on federal gun charges.=20
>> >>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-indicted=
>-federal-gun-charges-rcna39623>=20
>> >>> The article describes the charges as historic.=20
>> >>=20
>> >> Notice how all the charges do not link to his father.=20
>> >> Hmmmmmm.=20
>> >=20
>> > It seems likely that Hunter carried illegally while at the White House=
>=20
>> > and maybe while at the Capitol too.=20
>> > Imagine if a J6 tourist had been carrying.=20
>> >=20

>> > Rules for thee but not for me.

>> And when the antifa fascists attacked the white=20
>> house and tried to literally burn Trump out,=20
>> all those arrested had their charges dropped.=20
>> Hmmmmmmmm=20

>
>First time I've ever heard of this, my BS detector just went off.

It is Todd. He's not known for his sterling intellect or
grasp of reality. "antifa fascists" is a bit of an oxymoron
anyway since antifa is shorthand for 'anti-fascist'.

[Frank]

Antifacist in antifa means pro communist.

[rbowman]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 13:51:10 -0400, Frank wrote:

> Antifacist in antifa means pro communist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion

The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree. It's interesting the antifas
started to consider the social democrats the real enemy based on Stalin's
dicta. The SPD was the left center party that ushered in the decadent
'liberal democracy' known as the Weimar Republic.

There are many lessons to be learned from that era.

[Peeler]

On 16 Sep 2023 19:27:13 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
>
> The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

Oh, fuck, the grandiloquent BIGMOUTH is at it again! LOL

<FLUSH rest of the usual verbose high-faluting senile crap unread again>

[Jim Joyce]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 06:58:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:48:44?AM UTC-4, Jim Joyce wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:06:23 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
>> wrote:
>> >IMO the bigger risk here for Biden is the impeachment inquiry. They will be
>> >going after bank records and such, following the money and unlike the DOJ
>> >they are looking to uncover the truth. The tax trial, it's DOJ on one side, Hunter
>> >on the other, so I don't see anything new or shocking coming out of that.
>> >In fact, if I was Joe Biden, I would have told the idiot son to work out a plea
>> >deal.
>> That makes no sense. Hunter Biden's legal team and the DOJ *did* work out a plea
>> deal, but the judge assigned to the case picked it apart and it collapsed.
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/19/us/politics/inside-hunter-biden-plea-deal.html
>>
>
>Yes, when the judge asked if it did, the DOJ said no, Hunter;s lawyers said yes. That
>lead to a period where the two sides had an opportunity to resolve it and Hunter's
>lawyer was heard saying that if immunity was not in it, then rip it up.



> It's extremely unlikely that the DOJ went from a sweetheart deal for Hunter to refusing
>any plea deal at all.

The DOJ went from a plea deal to no plea deal, as we've both said above.

>They were happy with what was in there, absent that disagreement.
>There were some other minor issues, like the agreement put the judge in the position
>of deciding if Hunter would be charged in the future, the judge objected to that, but
>that's not some huge hurdle barring a revised plea deal.

In your opinion. Tell that to the DOJ. When the existing plea deal collapsed,
the DOJ didn't offer a new one.

>> Besides, plea deals don't come from defendants, they come from prosecutors.
>
>Often they are negotiated between the two sides as this one was.

I can't tell if you understand the point I was making or not. I was referring to
the things that need to happen before any negotiation can take place.

>> >I still don't understand why he backed out of the existing one over the
>> He didn't back out.
>
>Technically that's correct, so amend that to that the one big issue was whether
>the deal provided immunity against future prosecution or not. The judge finally
>rejected it because of a bizarre technicality, it had a provision where she would be
>the one to decide if Hunter had violated it and should face future prosecution.
>That kind of issue surely could be resolved. Whether you get immunity or not
>would seem to be the big sticking point.

In theory, I agree. It seems like it could have been resolved. In this case, it
wasn't resolved, as we've seen. The DOJ simply walked away, and now here we are.

>Hunter could have just said, OK, leave
>it out and the DOJ wouldn't have a problem with it, yet there was no new deal.
>Yet they could not reach a new deal.

I don't think either of us gets to decide what Hunter Biden's team could have
done or what the DOJ could have done. We can only see what each side did do.

>I find it hard to believe that was because
>of DOJ, they didn't have to give up anything, it was Hunter that would have had
>to agree to give up the future immunity. What other issues do you think there
>were?

When the plea deal collapsed, the DOJ walked away. That's what all of the
reporting says that I've seen. Have you seen something different?

>> >issue of not having immunity from possible prosecution for other crimes,
>> >eg registering as a foreign agent. Sure, it would have been sweet for him if
>> >that plea deal went through and he got that immunity. But when that wasn't
>> >happening, what's the point to not taking the deal anyway?
>> At that point there was no deal, so there was nothing to 'take'.
>
>But they had the opportunity to simply revise that agreement knowing what issues
>the judge objected to.

The DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal. What they could have done is pretty
irrelevant and the defense has no option at that point. As I think you know,
offers of a plea deal can only come from the prosecution.

>> >It was still a good
>> >deal, no jail time likely, diversion on the gun charges. Instead he's going to
>> >trial on all of it now and he's clearly as guilty as they come, he's going to have
>> >multiple felony convictions. So I really don't get it. Pops can pardon him,
>> >but still the plea deal sure looks far better and cheaper too. What am I missing?
>> You're missing the fact that the defense didn't kill the plea deal.
>
>They mostly did, their position was "rip it up" upon hearing that DOJ believed it
>did not give immunity from future prosecution. And BTW, that's a good example
>of what DOJ tried to pull to help Hunter. Put in some BS verbiage, that wasn't
>entirely clear, which the judge caught, where Hunter could claim later that he was
>given immunity. If you look at where the issues were, it fell apart over that and
>that the judge would be the decider about future prosecution if Hunter violated it.
>It seems very reasonable that had Hunter said forget the immunity the deal could
>have been revised.

From everything I've seen, the DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal. If/when
that happens, that's the end of it.

[Clare Snyder]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 15:47:03 -0500, Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:

Arguing (or attempting to discuss - same thing) with Trader is like
wrestling with a pig - - -

[T]

If you have spent any time over on cpusa.org, you
will find that the communists call EVERYONE
that is not them, a Fascist. It is where the
Wokies get the name calling from.

Scott thinks that calling yourself antifascist
means that you can get away with believing
and behaving like actual Fascists believed
and did. Blame the other guys for what you do.

By the way, fascist were flaming Leftists,
not Right Wingers. The Fascists believed
they had perfected Marxists Communism.

And it was pretty hard to tell them apart
from Communists. The only difference I
could find, besides them hating each other,
is that the Fascists do not believe in the
class struggle.

[trader_4]

No they did not. The judge said that she would not accept the deal as and
told them to go rework it. After several weeks, apparently that failed and then
DOJ proceeded to try him and so far, it's only on the gun charges. And the
sticking points in this deal were whether Hunter had immunity from future
prosecution and the stipulation that the judge would be the one to decide in
the future if Hunter had violated the terms and should be charged. The who
decides thing is a nit, leaving the immunity part
as the main area of contention. Given that the DOJ had been bending over
backwards to help Hunter for years, it seems to me extremely unlikely that
they suddenly just refused to do what the judge asked, which is make some
changes to the plea deal. It seems far more likely that Hunter queered it
over the immunity. That was the point of my post.

What they could have done is pretty
> irrelevant and the defense has no option at that point.

They were told to go rework the plea deal, it was not withdrawn when the left
court that day.

As I think you know,
> offers of a plea deal can only come from the prosecution.
> >> >It was still a good
> >> >deal, no jail time likely, diversion on the gun charges. Instead he's going to
> >> >trial on all of it now and he's clearly as guilty as they come, he's going to have
> >> >multiple felony convictions. So I really don't get it. Pops can pardon him,
> >> >but still the plea deal sure looks far better and cheaper too. What am I missing?
> >> You're missing the fact that the defense didn't kill the plea deal.
> >
> >They mostly did, their position was "rip it up" upon hearing that DOJ believed it
> >did not give immunity from future prosecution. And BTW, that's a good example
> >of what DOJ tried to pull to help Hunter. Put in some BS verbiage, that wasn't
> >entirely clear, which the judge caught, where Hunter could claim later that he was
> >given immunity. If you look at where the issues were, it fell apart over that and
> >that the judge would be the decider about future prosecution if Hunter violated it.
> >It seems very reasonable that had Hunter said forget the immunity the deal could
> >have been revised.
> From everything I've seen, the DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal. If/when
> that happens, that's the end of it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-plea-deal-court-judge/

The judge, Maryellen Noreika, deferred the decision on the plea deal, saying "you are telling me to rubber stamp the agreement." The parties have 14 days to brief her and the ruling could now be delayed for weeks.

"I have concerns about the agreement," Noreika said. "I can't let him plea to something if he thinks he has protection from something and he doesn't."

Clark (Hunter's lawyer) called the deal "null and void" after a prosecutor told the judge that Hunter Biden isn't immune from future charges in the investigation, including potential counts under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

That's what I commented on not making sense, the idiot's lawyer taking a hard line stance on
immunity from possible future charges, when the result if DOJ did what the idiot just asked for,
Hunter goes to trial on all of it, this and any future charges. Seems it's a no brainer to just
concede on that and take what's still a great deal.

So, thanks for keeping me thinking about this. I came up with a new explanation, that fits in
with what we're starting to see happen, which is Democrats turning on Joe Biden. If Joe
has decided he's going to back out and not run and Hunter knows it, that sure would explain
why there is no more plea deal. He can just stall any trials as long as possible, then before the
trial pops pardons him. That way he has no felony conviction record, no conviction record
for anything. He can go buy more guns and probably escape disbarment too.

[trader_4]

I'm sure have lots of experience with pig wrestling. Isn't that a national sport in Canada?

[Jim Joyce]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 22:26:04 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 15:47:03 -0500, Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>
>wrote:

>>From everything I've seen, the DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal. If/when
>>that happens, that's the end of it.
> Arguing (or attempting to discuss - same thing) with Trader is like
>wrestling with a pig - - -

Fair point. I sometimes try, though.

[alt.home.repair]

Interesting comment, given that I was mostly correct on the facts. For example
you stated that DOJ withdrew the plea deal. That's not true, the judge would not
approve the plea deal that was presented for two reasons. One was the issue of
immunity, the other was that it called for the judge to decide if Hunter would be
charged if he violated the terms. She sent them back to renegotiate it, to fix it
and gave them two weeks. Unless you have further evidence, it's not clear which
side killed the deal, but given that DOJ was already giving Hunter a sweet deal
and was bending over backwards, it seems unlikely to me that they would have
objected if Hunter just conceded on those two points and removed them from
the deal. Those were concessions for Hunter, not DOJ. DOJ would be giving up
nothing, it would be a less attractive deal for Hunter. Plus we have Hunter's lawyer
saying "then tear it up" when DOJ said that the existing deal wording meant that
Hunter did not have immunity from prosecution from other crimes. So it sure looks
like Hunter killed it, not DOJ.

And like I said, I suspect the reason is that Hunter and pops have decided that a
pardon is coming, a pardon before he goes to trial on anything. That way he has
no felony record. A pardon would be very easy if pops intends to bow out and not
run again. Even if he runs and wins it's still possible and would not be that surprising,
Biden just does what every he pleases and probably would do it and take the blowback.
Time will tell.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <53c5fba5-a4e5-4b59...@googlegroups.com>,
tra...@optonline.net says...

>
> And like I said, I suspect the reason is that Hunter and pops have decided that a
> pardon is coming, a pardon before he goes to trial on anything. That way he has
> no felony record. A pardon would be very easy if pops intends to bow out and not
> run again. Even if he runs and wins it's still possible and would not be that surprising,
> Biden just does what every he pleases and probably would do it and take the blowback.
> Time will tell.
>
>

I did not think anyone could be pardoned before they were found guilty.

If not true, pops would already have done that.

[Jim Joyce]

A person can be pardoned at any time. Well, not before they commit the act for
which they're being pardoned, but any time after that. They don't even have to
be indicted, let alone convicted.

>If not true, pops would already have done that.

Not gonna say it.

[Jim Joyce]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 06:35:18 -0700 (PDT), "alt.home.repair"
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 11:22:39?PM UTC-4, Jim Joyce wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 22:26:04 -0400, Clare Snyder <cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 15:47:03 -0500, Jim Joyce <no...@none.invalid>
>> >wrote:
>> >>From everything I've seen, the DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal. If/when
>> >>that happens, that's the end of it.
>> > Arguing (or attempting to discuss - same thing) with Trader is like
>> >wrestling with a pig - - -
>> Fair point. I sometimes try, though.
>
>Interesting comment, given that I was mostly correct on the facts. For example
>you stated that DOJ withdrew the plea deal. That's not true, the judge would not
>approve the plea deal that was presented for two reasons.

I stated that the DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal because that's what
all of the major news outlets reported, including the NY Times article that I
linked previously. You seem to have a different version of events.

Readers Digest, as I understand things:
1. Prosecutors and defense reach agreement on a plea deal.
2. They appear in court, where the judge asks the DOJ to rework the deal.
3. (Time elapses) The DOJ withdraws their offer of a plea deal.

And now here we are, with you trying to deny that the DOJ withdrew the plea deal
during that court hearing, but no one ever claimed that they did. The plea deal
was withdrawn (by the DOJ) later.

>One was the issue of
>immunity, the other was that it called for the judge to decide if Hunter would be
>charged if he violated the terms. She sent them back to renegotiate it, to fix it
>and gave them two weeks. Unless you have further evidence,

Just all of the reporting that is/was available, that's all. Since they're all
in agreement, I went with what they reported.

>it's not clear which
>side killed the deal, but given that DOJ was already giving Hunter a sweet deal
>and was bending over backwards, it seems unlikely to me that they would have
>objected if Hunter just conceded on those two points and removed them from
>the deal. Those were concessions for Hunter, not DOJ. DOJ would be giving up
>nothing, it would be a less attractive deal for Hunter. Plus we have Hunter's lawyer
>saying "then tear it up" when DOJ said that the existing deal wording meant that
>Hunter did not have immunity from prosecution from other crimes. So it sure looks
>like Hunter killed it, not DOJ.

Fine, but that would contradict all of the reporting that I've seen. Some
intrepid reporter, somewhere, should have dug up your version of events, no?

>And like I said, I suspect the reason is that Hunter and pops have decided that a
>pardon is coming, a pardon before he goes to trial on anything. That way he has
>no felony record. A pardon would be very easy if pops intends to bow out and not
>run again. Even if he runs and wins it's still possible and would not be that surprising,
>Biden just does what every he pleases and probably would do it and take the blowback.
>Time will tell.

My crystal ball is broken and my magic 8 ball says check back later.

[Bob F]

It is pretty damn clear that Joe Biden IS NOT interfering in his son's
problems. I know you GOP'ers cannot comprehend anyone like that.

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 19 Sep 2023 14:18:57 -0700, Bob F

I agree. It might be hard at times for him to resist doing something,
to help his son, but part of what it is to be a man is to have values
and live by them.

And Ford pardoned Nixon before he'd even been charged. If he hadn't
done that, if Nixon had been charged, convicted, and sentenced or even
part of that, trump might not have had the nerve to do the criminal
things he's done.

BTW,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12533235/Trump-wrote-lists-executive-assistant-classified-documents-discovered-Mar-Lago-bombshell-report-claims.html
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-legal-news-brief-former-trump-aide-molly-michaels-testimony-strengthens-classified-documents-case-against-him-185013932.html
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-denies-wrongdoing-after-report-he-wrote-to-do-lists-classified-documents-2023-09-18/

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <ailjgi1ufkbdr7grl...@4ax.com>,
no...@none.invalid says...

> >I did not think anyone could be pardoned before they were found guilty.
>
> A person can be pardoned at any time. Well, not before they commit the act for
> which they're being pardoned, but any time after that. They don't even have to
> be indicted, let alone convicted.
>
>
>

Did some research and you are correct. People can be pardoned before a
trial even starts. One thing it does open up is the person can not take
the 5th from then on when asked questions about what he may have done.

I would suppose if dad did pardon Hunter he could be draged into court
and asked many questions and he would have to answer them.

[Bob F]

What does it take to show the trump cultists what a scumbag moron he
really is?

[Bob F]

Which probably would be no risk to the President. But I doubt he would
do so before the end of his term. Not like trump.

If Hunter was not the Presidents son, the GOP would give a damn about
him. Pure politics.

[Skid Marks]

FIFY
What does it take to show the joetard cultists what a scumbag moron he really is?

[trader_4]

Surely you remember President Ford pardoning Nixon.

[trader_4]

Again, that is incorrect in context. The deal had the two issues that the judge
identified and told them to go rework it, that they had two weeks. The DOJ did not withdraw
the deal in court or immediately after. They tried to reach a new agreement with Hunter and
only AFTER that failed then of course it was withdrawn and charges brought. And again,
in court it wasn't the DOJ stating that they had some insurmountable issue, that they were
going to withdraw it. It was Hunter's lawyer who said that if there is no immunity, "then
tear it up". And yet you claim the DOJ tore it up.

What they could have done is pretty
> irrelevant and the defense has no option at that point.

Again, that is incorrect, you're implying that DOJ just unilaterally withdrew it.
The defense, as instructed by the judge had the option of reaching a new agreement.

As I think you know,
> offers of a plea deal can only come from the prosecution.

They can and often are negotiated with the defendant, as was this one.

> >> >It was still a good
> >> >deal, no jail time likely, diversion on the gun charges. Instead he's going to
> >> >trial on all of it now and he's clearly as guilty as they come, he's going to have
> >> >multiple felony convictions. So I really don't get it. Pops can pardon him,
> >> >but still the plea deal sure looks far better and cheaper too. What am I missing?
> >> You're missing the fact that the defense didn't kill the plea deal.
> >
> >They mostly did, their position was "rip it up" upon hearing that DOJ believed it
> >did not give immunity from future prosecution. And BTW, that's a good example
> >of what DOJ tried to pull to help Hunter. Put in some BS verbiage, that wasn't
> >entirely clear, which the judge caught, where Hunter could claim later that he was
> >given immunity. If you look at where the issues were, it fell apart over that and
> >that the judge would be the decider about future prosecution if Hunter violated it.
> >It seems very reasonable that had Hunter said forget the immunity the deal could
> >have been revised.
> From everything I've seen, the DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal. If/when
> that happens, that's the end of it.

Apparently you want to misconstrue what you see, because that only came after
they tried to renegotiate the plea deal and we don't know for sure which side would
not make concessions. But we know there were only two issues. One was removing
the judge as the one who would decide if Hunter violated it and should be charged.
That's a nit. The big one was immunity for Hunter. Now, who cares about that?
Not the DOJ, removing that makes the deal much better for them. Hunter is the one
that is the big loser there, Hunter's lawyer is the one that said, "then tear it up".
Hence my comments and analysis as to why Hunter would ever reject resolving the
existing deal for those two points.. Absent a pardon coming before trial, it makes no
sense. And notice I won't resort to calling you a pig wrestler either.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <42fd8778-f4b4-4c05...@googlegroups.com>,
tra...@optonline.net says...

>
> > >
> > I did not think anyone could be pardoned before they were found guilty.
>
> Surely you remember President Ford pardoning Nixon.
>
>
>
>

At that time I had many more important things than politcs. I do stand
corrected and did some research on the pardons. What may be the holdup
on pops pardon of the son is that they sort of give up taking the 5 th
on many questions they may be called to answer.

[trader_4]

That's a very good point. Another hold up is that pops is still running for
president and there would be huge blowback. So it's off the table until at
least after the election. But no worries, they can easily stall any trial for
that long. Having a trial pending also helps the DOJ, with the House
investigating this they can refuse to answer questions, because it's still
an ongoing criminal case.

Another more recent pardon example was Trump pardoning his pal Steve Bannon.
He had been charged with scamming donors to his build the wall fund. He and
his partner were accused of spending the money on themselves, including a boat
that the partner bought. Trump pardoned Bannon right before he left office.
Bill Clinton sunk it to a new low, he pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive from the 80s,
the largest tax cheat in US history. Back when Carter put his new excess profit
tax on oil, it only applied to old oil, not new. So Rich figured out how to put old
oil in a pipeline and have it come out new at the other end. When the feds were
about to arrest him for a scam that went into the hundreds of millions, he fled off
to Switzerland and never came back. He was still on the FBI most wanted list
at the time. His ex-wife donated millions to the Democrats and hundreds of
thousands to Clinton's library. Amazing how that works.....

[Jim Joyce]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 05:59:50 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:47:10?PM UTC-4, Jim Joyce wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 06:58:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:48:44?AM UTC-4, Jim Joyce wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:06:23 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
>> >> wrote:

<snip>

>> The DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal.
>
>Again, that is incorrect in context.

Well, that's what I've seen and heard.

>The deal had the two issues that the judge
>identified and told them to go rework it, that they had two weeks.

Agreed.

>The DOJ did not withdraw
>the deal in court or immediately after.

Agreed.

>They tried to reach a new agreement with Hunter and
>only AFTER that failed then of course it was withdrawn and charges brought.

I haven't seen or heard that. The defense team says after the court hearing the
DOJ prosecutors simply went silent WRT the plea deal. Eventually, the deal was
withdrawn and charges were brought.

>And again,
>in court it wasn't the DOJ stating that they had some insurmountable issue, that they were
>going to withdraw it. It was Hunter's lawyer who said that if there is no immunity, "then
>tear it up". And yet you claim the DOJ tore it up.

You're stuck on what happened during the court hearing. I'm trying to get you to
move on to the point where the DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal.

>What they could have done is pretty
>> irrelevant and the defense has no option at that point.
>
>Again, that is incorrect,

What I'm saying is that when it comes to plea deals, if the prosecution
withdraws their offer of a plea deal, the defense has no recourse. I assume you
know that, but you make it sound like you think the defense can just proceed
somehow.

>you're implying that DOJ just unilaterally withdrew it.

More than implying. That's what I've read and heard.

>The defense, as instructed by the judge had the option of reaching a new agreement.

You're at the wrong point in the timeline. Skip ahead to the time when the DOJ
decided to withdraw their offer of a plea deal.

> As I think you know,
>> offers of a plea deal can only come from the prosecution.
>
>They can and often are negotiated with the defendant, as was this one.

Plea deals can and often are negotiated with the defendant, but formal OFFERS of
a plea deal can only come from the prosecution. I said offers, above.

[Frank]

It is beyond your comprehension that the then vice president was selling
his office to benefit his family and himself. Major countries paying
them off were China and Ukraine. Today it looks like the Ukraine is
getting more than they paid for.

The GOP's target is Biden and the route to get there is through the son.

[Scott Lurndal]

Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>On 9/20/2023 12:06 AM, Bob F wrote:
>> On 9/19/2023 7:52 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>> In article <ailjgi1ufkbdr7grl...@4ax.com>,
>>> no...@none.invalid says...
>>>>> I did not think anyone could be pardoned before they were found guilty.
>>>>
>>>> A person can be pardoned at any time. Well, not before they commit
>>>> the act for
>>>> which they're being pardoned, but any time after that. They don't
>>>> even have to
>>>> be indicted, let alone convicted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did some research and you are correct.  People can be pardoned before a
>>> trial even starts.  One thing it does open up is the person can not take
>>> the 5th from then on when asked questions about what he may have done.
>>>
>>> I would suppose if dad did pardon Hunter he could be draged into court
>>> and asked many questions and he would have to answer them.
>>
>> Which probably would be no risk to the President. But I doubt he would
>> do so before the end of his term. Not like trump.
>>
>> If Hunter was not the Presidents son, the GOP would give a damn about
>> him. Pure politics.
>>
>>
>>
>
>It is beyond your comprehension that the then vice president was selling
>his office to benefit his family and himself.

You have failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless accusation.

[Frank]

Get serious. Are you deaf, dumb and blind?

[Scott Lurndal]

[Frank]

On 9/20/2023 2:07 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

I do not need to reference it as it is all over the place. Maybe all
you pay attention to are places like CNN and MSNBC

https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in-his-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/

[Ed P]

That's the problem. It is all over the place with much opinion and
innuendo. Facts is what matters and that won't come out until it hits
the court. Meantime, it is trial by newsgroups and opinions.

[T]

https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/cartoons/alg091423dAPR-800x0.jpg

It is the narrative. Just like Russian Collusion
and a fair election. Just lie your ass off.

[rbowman]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:00:41 -0400, Frank wrote:

> It is beyond your comprehension that the then vice president was selling
> his office to benefit his family and himself. Major countries paying
> them off were China and Ukraine. Today it looks like the Ukraine is
> getting more than they paid for.
>
> The GOP's target is Biden and the route to get there is through the son.

Ann Coulter has a column today that I agree with:

https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2023/09/20/my-party-the-stupid-
party-n2628736

Government spending and the Biden circus is a big meh for the voters. I'm
not sure how many are even excited about abortion. However even the
liberals are getting sick of illegal aliens shitting on their lawn and
raping their poodles.

I was surprised that 30 NY counties kicked back against Adams'
resettlement scheme. Rensselaer County is one that didn't surprise me. I
figured they would staple a 'return to sender' note on the illegals and
toss them into the Hudson but some of the other counties are a bit more
liberal.

The GOP really needs to pick fights they have a chance of winning.

[T]

The GOP needs to grow a spine

https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/cartoons/mrz092023dAPC-800x0.jpg

[Peeler]

On 21 Sep 2023 03:18:07 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> Ann Coulter has a column today that I agree with:

Well, nobody's surprised, Trumptard and bigmouth! LOL

--
Gossiping "lowbrowwoman" about herself:
"Usenet is my blog... I don't give a damn if anyone ever reads my posts
but they are useful in marshaling [sic] my thoughts."
MID: <iteioi...@mid.individual.net>

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 12:30:17 PM UTC-4, Jim Joyce wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 05:59:50 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
> >On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 4:47:10?PM UTC-4, Jim Joyce wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Sep 2023 06:58:32 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:48:44?AM UTC-4, Jim Joyce wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 06:06:23 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> The DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal.
> >
> >Again, that is incorrect in context.
> Well, that's what I've seen and heard.
> >The deal had the two issues that the judge
> >identified and told them to go rework it, that they had two weeks.
> Agreed.
> >The DOJ did not withdraw
> >the deal in court or immediately after.
> Agreed.
> >They tried to reach a new agreement with Hunter and
> >only AFTER that failed then of course it was withdrawn and charges brought.
> I haven't seen or heard that. The defense team says after the court hearing the
> DOJ prosecutors simply went silent WRT the plea deal. Eventually, the deal was
> withdrawn and charges were brought.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/08/15/doj-hits-back-at-hunter-biden-denies-allegation-it-reneged-on-plea-deal/?sh=51d6c81c3201

"Prosecutors also said they rejected subsequent changes to the agreement proposed by Hunter Biden’s legal team after the July court appearance and that Hunter Biden’s attorneys dismissed their counterproposal."

> >And again,
> >in court it wasn't the DOJ stating that they had some insurmountable issue, that they were
> >going to withdraw it. It was Hunter's lawyer who said that if there is no immunity, "then
> >tear it up". And yet you claim the DOJ tore it up.
> You're stuck on what happened during the court hearing. I'm trying to get you to
> move on to the point where the DOJ withdrew their offer of a plea deal.

That was after they tried to renegotiate it with Hunter, but failed. And again, we know the
two sticking points were two things and only one of them really mattered, the immunity for
Hunter, which he could have just dropped.

> >What they could have done is pretty
> >> irrelevant and the defense has no option at that point.
> >
> >Again, that is incorrect,
> What I'm saying is that when it comes to plea deals, if the prosecution
> withdraws their offer of a plea deal, the defense has no recourse. I assume you
> know that, but you make it sound like you think the defense can just proceed
> somehow.

I never said or implied that. Again, I'm saying what happened was there were two points
that caused the judge to reject it, both of which Hunter could have just given up if he chose
to. Plus his lawyer said in court "then tear it up" when DOJ said the deal did not give him
immunity, so obviously they had a big issue with it. So they go try to renegotiate it, the deal
absent immunity would be great for DOJ, so based on all that, sure looks like it's most likely
Hunter that killed it, not DOJ. And after they could not reach agreement, of course only then
DOJ technically withdrew the agreement that the judge would not approve and charged him

> >you're implying that DOJ just unilaterally withdrew it.
> More than implying. That's what I've read and heard.

"Prosecutors also said they rejected subsequent changes to the agreement proposed by Hunter Biden’s legal team after the July court appearance and that Hunter Biden’s attorneys dismissed their counterproposal."

> >The defense, as instructed by the judge had the option of reaching a new agreement.
> You're at the wrong point in the timeline. Skip ahead to the time when the DOJ
> decided to withdraw their offer of a plea deal.

Right, only after they tried to renegotiate it and couldn't. Hunter's lawyer is the one that said
"tear it up", rejecting it. Since giving up immunity makes it a worse deal for Hunter, a better
deal for DOJ, seems likely that Hunter would not give it up. Which of course was the whole
point of my post, that makes no sense, unless Hunter knows he has a pardon coming before
he goes to any trial.

[trader_4]

So companies in those countries were just paying Hunter tens of millions because
they wanted to help out a drug addict that had no experience whatever in their
countries? WTF did Hunter know about Ukraine or natural gas? And the money
just happened to get whacked up among the Biden clan, like the mafia does,
everyone getting a taste? Hunter's emails saying 10 percent goes to the "big guy",
former business partner testifying that the big guy was Joe Biden, none of that
is evidence? Try changing the names to Trump with the same facts, see if that helps.
There is 100 times more here already than there ever was with the Russian collusion.
And then Hunter shifted to taking up painting and selling those for hundreds of thousands
of dollars. The WH answer to that was to say it's perfectly fine because the buyers
will remain secret. WTF? IDK why the Republicans have not subpoenaed that,
I guess it's still coming.

[trader_4]

What court? You expect Biden to charge himself? And it's not just innuendo, there
is a mountain of evidence that the Biden clan took in tens of millions from foreign
companies. And where are the new businesses created, new jobs, something,
anything?

[Cindy Hamilton]

On 2023-09-21, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> You have failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless accusation.
>
> So companies in those countries were just paying Hunter tens of millions because
> they wanted to help out a drug addict that had no experience whatever in their
> countries?

Objection. Conjecture.

They probably thought they could trade on his name, or that Joe Biden
would come through with favors. They don't have to be right to have
believed that.

> WTF did Hunter know about Ukraine or natural gas? And the money
> just happened to get whacked up among the Biden clan, like the mafia does,
> everyone getting a taste? Hunter's emails saying 10 percent goes to the "big guy",
> former business partner testifying that the big guy was Joe Biden, none of that
> is evidence?

Is this any better than hearsay? Let's see the bank records.

--
Cindy Hamilton

[rbowman]

At least two invertebrates, Romney and Cheney, are going or gone. Now for
the Murder Turtle, Graham, Murkowski, Collins and many more.
>
> https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/cartoons/mrz092023dAPC-800x0.jpg

[Scott Lurndal]

Where's the evidence? You can't point to a blog post from some nutcase in
congress whose baseless accusations have no supporting evidence.

You have still failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless accusation.

(Note "hearsay" isn't evidence).

[Peeler]

On 21 Sep 2023 14:16:05 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> At least two invertebrates, Romney and Cheney, are going or gone. Now for
> the Murder Turtle, Graham, Murkowski, Collins and many more.

And NONE, realy NONE, of those being a pathological bigmouth like you are!
LOL

--
Yet more of the abnormal senile gossiping by the resident senile gossip:
"I never understood how they made a living but the space where the local
party store was is now up for lease. It probably was more than helium. I
often walk over the the adjacent market to get something for dinner and
people stuffing balloons in their cars was a common sight. No more. I've
no idea if there is another store in town."
MID: <kafs2nF...@mid.individual.net>

[Frank]

The party relies on sycophants like you. The evidence is all around you
and you ignore it.

[Frank]

The evidence is all around you and party sycophants just ignore it. You
must recall about Biden getting the Ukraine prosecutor fired video which
was an early indicator. Then there were pictures of Biden with the
people Hunter was getting paid by.

The same people that say Biden did nothing wrong were the same ones
accepting the Trump/Russian collusion scam invented by the Clinton
campaign.

[Scott Lurndal]

[Bob F]

On 9/21/2023 1:13 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>> On 9/21/2023 11:05 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>>>> On 9/20/2023 2:07 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> It is beyond your comprehension that the then vice president was selling
>>>>>> his office to benefit his family and himself.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless accusation.
>>>>
>>>> I do not need to reference it as it is all over the place. Maybe all
>>>> you pay attention to are places like CNN and MSNBC
>>>>
>>>> https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in-his-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/
>>>
>>> Where's the evidence? You can't point to a blog post from some nutcase in
>>> congress whose baseless accusations have no supporting evidence.
>>>
>>> You have still failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless accusation.
>>>
>>> (Note "hearsay" isn't evidence).
>>
>> The party relies on sycophants like you. The evidence is all around you
>> and you ignore it.
>
> You have still failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless accusation.

Frank NEVER has any evidence for his claims.

[Jim Joyce]

Frank tried to offer up the instance where Joe Biden led the delegation to force
the resignation of the corrupt Ukraine prosecutor, as if it somehow showed
evidence of corruption. I guess Frank didn't realize that it actually showed
evidence of integrity. Oops.

[trader_4]

The House committee has the bank records, you just won't look or listen.
Now that they have started the impeachment inquiry, they will have the power
to subpoena more. We just learned who the big liar is, Joe Biden, claiming he
had nothing to do with any of Hunter's deals, did know anything about them.
Now we know that Joe Biden called in over 20 times during business deals
Hunter was having and attended at least several dinner meetings too. Even
the WH now admits this, but says he didn't call to discuss any business.
Whether he did or not, the reason was clear, his office, his stature, was part
of what Hunter was selling and pops knew it.And direct testimony from Hunter's
business partner is not hearsay. Interesting how you worry about "hearsay", but
ignore the Democrats lies and the lib media coverup of direct evidence, like Hunter's
laptop. Discovered before the 2020 election, the Bidens and Democrats came up with
an electioninterference lie, claiming it was a Russian intelligence plant. The media
went along with it, only bringing up the laptop to claim that's what it was. That POS Blinken
got 50 former intel officials to prostitute themselves and lie to say that it was a
Russian operation. That's one of the best examples of the deep state and how it
works. Now we know the laptop is real. Just change the names there to Trump and
any honest person knows how the media would have handled that, it would have been
24/7 played up like the Russia collusion story, not denounced by the lib media.

[trader_4]

What delegation to fire the prosecutor? That's one thing that's very clear,
whatever happened it was not a delegation going to Ukraine to fire Shokin.
It sure looks like the truth is coming out on that one and it's looking like Biden
did do it because Hunter was being paid by Burisma. The VP doesn't just get on a
plane one day to go over to Ukraine with a plan to demand a prosecutor be fired
or the US will not provide the promised billions in aid. These trips are planned
weeks or months in advance, the various issues, positions, who they will meet with,
what the objectives are, those are all discussed, agreed on, memorialized before
the trip. There will be documents, meeting notes, position papers, witnesses.
So far, what the House has heard and obtained show that the US was OK with
the progress Shokin had made against corruption, but that there was more they
wanted done. They were pointing out that more still needed to be done,
but they had been praising positive steps he had taken and there was no
discussion that has shown up so far saying he had to go. In fact, there is evidence
that some involved were surprised it happened. So if it's true that was an
objective of the Biden trip, there will be direct evidence to show it. If that doesn't
exist, then it's clear that Biden did it on his own.

I originally gave Biden the benefit of the doubt on this one. One reason was that
he himself bragged about what he did in public. I thought that would be very stupid
if he did it corruptly. But now that I've seen more of what a hot mess mentally
he is, clearly having all kinds of problems and telling all kinds of crazy crap, that's
changed. Tell us this, if this was a goal of the mission, if Biden was authorized to
do it, if it was US policy, where are Obama and Kerry? They could easily help their
good buddy Joe by simply saying that. Their silence on this for years now is deafening.
The logical likelihood is they know it wasn't the US plan and Joe did it on his own,
they don't want to lie for him.

It's also interesting that the story is that the US is very concerned about what a
prosecutor in Ukraine is doing, but there are no concerns that an investigation into
tax crimes and gun charges against a president's son take 4 years and then result
in an sweet heart deal. A deal that was so blatantly bad that the judge would not
agree to it. And how along the way how two years worth of tax charges sailed by
the statute of limitations. Sounds like we should be looking at corruption closer
to home.

[Cindy Hamilton]

On 2023-09-22, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On 2023-09-21, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >> You have failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless accusation.
>> >
>> > So companies in those countries were just paying Hunter tens of millions because
>> > they wanted to help out a drug addict that had no experience whatever in their
>> > countries?
>> Objection. Conjecture.
>>
>> They probably thought they could trade on his name, or that Joe Biden
>> would come through with favors. They don't have to be right to have
>> believed that.
>> > WTF did Hunter know about Ukraine or natural gas? And the money
>> > just happened to get whacked up among the Biden clan, like the mafia does,
>> > everyone getting a taste? Hunter's emails saying 10 percent goes to the "big guy",
>> > former business partner testifying that the big guy was Joe Biden, none of that
>> > is evidence?
>> Is this any better than hearsay? Let's see the bank records.
>>
>> --
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> The House committee has the bank records, you just won't look or listen.

They have the bank records. Do the bank records show anything
probative?

Here's a summary of the evidence:
https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in-his-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/
Where are the damning transactions?

--
Cindy Hamilton

[Scott Lurndal]

trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:
>On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 10:23:49=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, Jim Joyce wro=
>te:
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 16:18:21 -0700, Bob F <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote:=20
>>=20
>> >On 9/21/2023 1:13 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:=20
>> >> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:=20
>> >>> On 9/21/2023 11:05 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:=20
>> >>>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:=20
>> >>>>> On 9/20/2023 2:07 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:=20
>> >>>>>> Frank <"frank "@frank.net> writes:=20
>> >>>>=20
>> >>>>>>> It is beyond your comprehension that the then vice president was =
>selling=20
>> >>>>>>> his office to benefit his family and himself.=20
>> >>>>>>=20
>> >>>>>> You have failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless a=
>ccusation.=20
>> >>>>>=20
>> >>>>> I do not need to reference it as it is all over the place. Maybe al=
>l=20
>> >>>>> you pay attention to are places like CNN and MSNBC=20
>> >>>>>=20
>> >>>>> https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement=
>-in-his-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/=20
>> >>>>=20
>> >>>> Where's the evidence? You can't point to a blog post from some nutca=
>se in=20
>> >>>> congress whose baseless accusations have no supporting evidence.=20
>> >>>>=20
>> >>>> You have still failed to provide any evidence to support your basele=
>ss accusation.=20
>> >>>>=20
>> >>>> (Note "hearsay" isn't evidence).=20
>> >>>=20
>> >>> The party relies on sycophants like you. The evidence is all around y=
>ou=20
>> >>> and you ignore it.=20
>> >>=20
>> >> You have still failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless=
> accusation.=20
>> >=20

>> >Frank NEVER has any evidence for his claims.

>> Frank tried to offer up the instance where Joe Biden led the delegation t=
>o force=20
>> the resignation of the corrupt Ukraine prosecutor, as if it somehow showe=
>d=20
>> evidence of corruption. I guess Frank didn't realize that it actually sho=
>wed=20
>> evidence of integrity. Oops.
>
>What delegation to fire the prosecutor? That's one thing that's very clea=

>r,
>whatever happened it was not a delegation going to Ukraine to fire Shokin.

"European and US officials pressed Ukraine to sack Viktor Shokin,
the country's former prosecutor-general, months before Joe Biden,
the former US vice-president, personally intervened to force his
removal, people involved in the talks said. Mr Biden did not act
unilaterally nor did he instigate the push against Mr Shokin,
despite suggestions to the contrary by supporters of US president
Donald Trump, people familiar with the matter said." (Financial Times).

https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

"EU diplomats working on Ukraine at the time have, however, told
the FT that they were looking for ways to persuade Kiev to remove
Mr Shokin well before Mr Biden entered the picture. The push
for Mr Shokin's removal was part of an international effort
to bolster Ukraine's institutions following Russia's annexation
of Crimea and the armed conflict in the eastern part of the country."


"Another senior Obama administration official at the time added: 'The idea
that Shokin was investigating Burisma, I learnt that theory for the first
time from Rudy Giuliani.'"

"Prominent Republican senators, including Rob Portman of Ohio and Ron
Johnson of Wisconsin, were on a similar push at the time, calling for
"urgent reforms to the prosecutor-general's office and judiciary" in an
early 2016 letter to Mr Poroshenko."




<snip baseless trader_4 speculation>

[trader_4]

Tens of millions of money flowing from foreign countries, being whacked up among the
Biden clan, no problems there? Can you point us to one oil company, internet company,
copper mine, any real business that was there? Try changing the names to Trump, see if
that helps. And the House doesn't have all the records, they don't have Joe Biden's. We
do have testimony from two career IRS agents, one a gay Democrat, that they were blocked
from pursuing the money trail and then Democrats say there is no evidence. Kind of like in
the early days of Watergate, saying you have no evidence of any involvement by the president
or WH.

[trader_4]

Yeah, that's the same kind of BS put out by the Democrats about Hunter;s
laptop being a Russian operation. They went so far as having that POS
Blinken get 50 former intel officials to prostitute themselves claiming that.
Then of course the lib media ran with that, 24/7. It was all a cover story,
a lie. If a goal of that trip by Biden was to fire the prosecutor and to use the
aid as leverage, we don't need the media to be telling us. It would be memorialized
in the weeks leading up to the trip, there will be memos, papers, witnesses.
So far, the House has a lot and there isn't anything there so far showing that
firing the prosecutor and using the aid to were discusses, much less a goa.

>
> https://www.ft.com/content/e1454ace-e61b-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc
>
> "EU diplomats working on Ukraine at the time have, however, told
> the FT that they were looking for ways to persuade Kiev to remove
> Mr Shokin well before Mr Biden entered the picture. The push
> for Mr Shokin's removal was part of an international effort
> to bolster Ukraine's institutions following Russia's annexation
> of Crimea and the armed conflict in the eastern part of the country."
>
>
> "Another senior Obama administration official at the time added: 'The idea
> that Shokin was investigating Burisma, I learnt that theory for the first
> time from Rudy Giuliani.'"
>
> "Prominent Republican senators, including Rob Portman of Ohio and Ron
> Johnson of Wisconsin, were on a similar push at the time, calling for
> "urgent reforms to the prosecutor-general's office and judiciary" in an
> early 2016 letter to Mr Poroshenko."

Apples and oranges. We know that the US had been pushing them for reforms.
As I pointed out, we also have US documents showing that in the months before
Biden's visit, the US had sent letters to Ukraine, complimenting them on the changes
Shokin had made and asking them to do more. The question is how we suddenly
went from that to old Joe doing what he did, other than Hunter getting a million a year
no show job. Shokin didn't have to be actually investigating Burisma either, the founder
claims he was shaking him down to not investigate. Obviously he hired Hunter for
something worth millions.

I see people are starting to wise up. Polls show that 60% of the people now believe
the Bidens were up to no good and Joe knew about it and has been lying. Also 74%
now say that Biden's age and fitness are a major issue. I see at a Democrat fund
raiser in NYC last week, an easy audience, Biden told his old lame story about how he
only decided to run after Trump's infamous words after Charlottesville. The only
problem is, he told the same story, almost word for word to them twice. A very clear
classic sign of dementia, one that can't be explained away as dyslexia or some
slurring of words. When you wind up with Trump again, you were warned.

[Scott Lurndal]

trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:
>On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:04:49=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton =
>wrote:
>> On 2023-09-22, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:=20
>> > On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 9:04:01=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, Cindy Hami=
>lton wrote:=20
>> >> On 2023-09-21, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:=20
>> >> >> You have failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless ac=
>cusation.=20
>> >> >=20
>> >> > So companies in those countries were just paying Hunter tens of mill=
>ions because=20
>> >> > they wanted to help out a drug addict that had no experience whateve=
>r in their=20
>> >> > countries?=20
>> >> Objection. Conjecture.=20
>> >>=20
>> >> They probably thought they could trade on his name, or that Joe Biden=
>=20
>> >> would come through with favors. They don't have to be right to have=20
>> >> believed that.=20
>> >> > WTF did Hunter know about Ukraine or natural gas? And the money=20
>> >> > just happened to get whacked up among the Biden clan, like the mafia=
> does,=20
>> >> > everyone getting a taste? Hunter's emails saying 10 percent goes to =
>the "big guy",=20
>> >> > former business partner testifying that the big guy was Joe Biden, n=
>one of that=20
>> >> > is evidence?=20
>> >> Is this any better than hearsay? Let's see the bank records.=20
>> >>=20
>> >> --=20
>> >> Cindy Hamilton=20
>> >=20
>> > The House committee has the bank records, you just won't look or listen=
>.
>> They have the bank records. Do the bank records show anything=20
>> probative?=20
>>=20
>> Here's a summary of the evidence:=20
>> https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in-hi=
>s-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/=20
>> Where are the damning transactions?=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>Tens of millions of money flowing from foreign countries, being whacked up =

>among the
>Biden clan, no problems there?

Can you point us to _any_ evidence that is the case? Even the
republicans in the house don't believe they've any real evidence.

[trader_4]

Are you denying that bank records show that Hunter received tens of millions
from foreign countries? Denying that the House has bank records showing that
the money was whacked up among the family? Denying that Hunter's emails
say that 10% goes to the big guy? Denying that we have testimony from his
former business partner that the big guy was Joe Biden? Denying that they have
emails where Hunter complains that half his income is going to his father?
Denying that his former business partner testified that Joe Biden called in to
at least two dozen business meetings that Hunter was having and showed up
at dinner meetings too?
Denying that Hunter had that million a year no show job with Burisma, for which
he had zero qualifications? Denying that Hunter's latest pay off scheme was
taking up painting and selling those for hundreds of thousands? Denying that
instead of the WH denouncing what Hunter was doing, they said it's A-OK because
the names of those that bought the paintings will remain secret? Try changing
the names to Trump and then I'm sure you;ll see the evidence. And through all
of this, Joe Biden could at least distance himself from his son, but instead on the
eve of his appearing in court to plead guilty to tax evasion and gun charges,
Joe Biden took him on a trip to Europe, by his side and had him attending a
state dinner for India's PM. That sure takes some in your face gall. And then when
Trump gets re-elected, you;'ll claim not to understand how it could be.

[Scott Lurndal]

trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:
>On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:41:20=E2=80=AFPM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal w=
>rote:
>> trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> writes:=20
>> >On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:04:49=3DE2=3D80=3DAFAM UTC-4, Cindy =
>Hamilton =3D=20
>> >wrote:=20
>> >> On 2023-09-22, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:=3D20=20
>> >> > On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 9:04:01=3DE2=3D80=3DAFAM UTC-4, C=
>indy Hami=3D=20
>> >lton wrote:=3D20=20
>> >> >> On 2023-09-21, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:=3D20=20
>> >> >> >> You have failed to provide any evidence to support your baseless=
> ac=3D=20
>> >cusation.=3D20=20
>> >> >> >=3D20=20
>> >> >> > So companies in those countries were just paying Hunter tens of m=
>ill=3D=20
>> >ions because=3D20=20
>> >> >> > they wanted to help out a drug addict that had no experience what=
>eve=3D=20
>> >r in their=3D20=20
>> >> >> > countries?=3D20=20
>> >> >> Objection. Conjecture.=3D20=20
>> >> >>=3D20=20
>> >> >> They probably thought they could trade on his name, or that Joe Bid=
>en=3D=20
>> >=3D20=20

>> >> >> would come through with favors. They don't have to be right to have=

>=3D20=20
>> >> >> believed that.=3D20=20

>> >> >> > WTF did Hunter know about Ukraine or natural gas? And the money=

>=3D20=20
>> >> >> > just happened to get whacked up among the Biden clan, like the ma=
>fia=3D=20
>> > does,=3D20=20
>> >> >> > everyone getting a taste? Hunter's emails saying 10 percent goes =
>to =3D=20
>> >the "big guy",=3D20=20
>> >> >> > former business partner testifying that the big guy was Joe Biden=
>, n=3D=20
>> >one of that=3D20=20
>> >> >> > is evidence?=3D20=20
>> >> >> Is this any better than hearsay? Let's see the bank records.=3D20=
>=20
>> >> >>=3D20=20
>> >> >> --=3D20=20
>> >> >> Cindy Hamilton=3D20=20
>> >> >=3D20=20
>> >> > The House committee has the bank records, you just won't look or lis=
>ten=3D=20
>> >.=20
>> >> They have the bank records. Do the bank records show anything=3D20=20
>> >> probative?=3D20=20
>> >>=3D20=20
>> >> Here's a summary of the evidence:=3D20=20
>> >> https://oversight.house.gov/blog/evidence-of-joe-bidens-involvement-in=
>-hi=3D=20
>> >s-familys-influence-peddling-schemes/=3D20=20
>> >> Where are the damning transactions?=3D20=20
>> >>=3D20=20
>> >> --=3D20=20
>> >> Cindy Hamilton=20
>> >=20
>> >Tens of millions of money flowing from foreign countries, being whacked =
>up =3D
>> >among the=20

>> >Biden clan, no problems there?

>> Can you point us to _any_ evidence that is the case? Even the=20

>> republicans in the house don't believe they've any real evidence.
>

>Are you denying that bank records show that Hunter received tens of million=
>s
>from foreign countries?

I'm asking you to show the records, and their provenance. Not vague allegations
from right-wing nutcases in the house.

And, as has been pointed out to you, Hunter is not the president, nor does
he have any role in the US government.

Unlike, of course, Ivanka, Jared and Donnie who've accepted _billions_
from foreign countries.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html

[trader_4]

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Third-Bank-Records-Memorandum_Redacted.pdf

Photos of the actual bank records, happy now?

>
> And, as has been pointed out to you, Hunter is not the president, nor does
> he have any role in the US government.

But at the very least he's trading on the presidency and pops is totally OK
with it. He has not denounced it, called for it to end. In fact, the more of a criminal
Hunter becomes, the more Joe flaunts it in our faces. He took him to Ireland
at his side, had him at the state dinner for the Indian PM. WTF was a guy that
was pleading guilty to massive tax evasion and gun charges doing there?
We know the reason, it's because Joe was part of it, so he's in for a penny and
now in for a pound.

>
> Unlike, of course, Ivanka, Jared and Donnie who've accepted _billions_
> from foreign countries.

Not as money for no show jobs or even as direct income. Jared for example
took Saudi money for a real estate investment fund. Can you show us an oil
well, real estate building, real estate holdings, internet company, anything for all
those tens of millions that went to the Biden clan? Hell, you libs had your shorts
in a knot when some foreigners were staying at a Trump hotel and paying for the room.
They actually stayed there, it was a real transaction. Hunter being given diamonds,
a million a year no show job in a foreign company that he has no qualifications for
and taking up painting, selling those for hundreds of thousands a piece doesn't
seem remotely the same. And Trump isn't president, Joe Biden is.