Not long ago I wrote that Hunter Biden would likely get a sweetheart deal wherein he would come in, plead guilty to some tax charge and some gun charge, get probation, and the Justice Department would declare the case closed and this proves everybody gets equal justice, blah blah blah.
So now it is happening. Of course, the sentence remains to be seen, but if he gets jail time, I will be shocked. After all, Merrick Garland's Justice Department has bigger fish to fry-like Donald J. Trump.
Today, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told the press that this may be a positive development in that if the FBI and DOJ close their investigation of Hunter Biden, Congress may be-should be- able to get documents more easily since "the matter is no longer under investigation".
In addition, I would like to know if this plea deal entails cooperation-full and complete cooperation- on the part of Hunter Biden as to the full nature of his business dealings with foreign countries like Ukraine and China, and to what extent was he trading access to "the Big Guy (Joe Biden), also how much money was Joe Biden getting out of all this.
If such cooperation is not required as part of Hunter's plea deal, that will speak volumes about how our current DOJ is conducting business.
Keep in mind that the Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith (appointed by Garland), has also indicted Trump's valet, who apparently helped move those infamous boxes from the White House to Florida. Was this unfortunate fellow charged because he refused to roll over on Trump? If so, should not the same pressure be brought to bear on Hunter Biden to tell all he knows about "government corruption" and influence peddling?
Obviously, that will not happen. Hunter will pay a fine, get probation, and community service, and it will all go away (as far as the DOJ is concerned.)
11 comments:
How much consideration do you give the Republican-led report that found no evidence of wrongdoing into the Biden family? Does that sway you in any way?
I have a feeling that this is going to be like the Benghazi thing. Ten investigations, six of which led by Republicans, and none of the talking points changed.
Don't get me wrong. Hunter Biden should be charged with for the things which he has been found guilty, but there seems to be a bit of "conclusions before evidence" going on with the other accusations.
"Hunter Biden should be charged with for the things which he has been found guilty, but there seems to be a bit of "conclusions before evidence" going on with the other accusations."
You want to reconstruct that sentence?
No evidence of wrongdoing by the BIden family?
Where do I begin?
But you are right about one thing: Outside of this BS plea deal, no Biden will ever be charged with a crime-no matter who is in charge.
A good reminder why I shouldn't try to write comments using my phone. I try to be brief at the expense of clarity.
Let me try again:
Hunter Biden should face consequences for his illegal activities. However, there are a lot of accusations against him that don't seem to be supported by evidence.
And when I say that there isn't any evidence, I'm merely going by what a Republican-led investigation concluded. If it was conducted by Democrats, then yeah, it would be suspicious. However, this investigation was made by people with an axe to grind against him, and they came up with nothing.
Gary Fouse, however, seems to know something that they don't. You should write to them and let them know that you've cracked the case.
Sorry to be so sarcastic, but yeah, where should you begin? How about one specific thing? (Obviously not talking about the things which he's facing consequences for right now.) I mean, give me the single best bit of evidence. Like, if you were trying to give evidence against Jeffrey Dahmer, you'd start with the body parts in his refrigerator. There's lots more, but that's enough to get anyone's attention.
"No Biden will ever be charged with a crime-no matter who is in charge."
You may be right, but probably not for the reasons that you think. The rich and powerful always get a better deal than the average Joe.
I mean, look at Trump. He embezzled money from his own charity. Sure, he had to pay 2 million dollars in penalties, but if you or I did such a thing, we'd be doing some jail time.
"....give me the single best piece of evidence..."
Of what? That he used his position as VP to intervene with Ukraine when their prosecutor was investigating Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter was sitting?
Or that Biden used his position as VP to get Hunter lucrative business deals with China?
That Joe shared in the profits made by Hunter from said business deals?
That Joe himself kept boxes of classified documents at his private residence and offices after leaving office as senator and VP?
"That he used his position as VP to intervene with Ukraine when their prosecutor was investigating Burisma, on whose board of directors Hunter was sitting?"
This isn't even true though. The prosecutor flat-out said that the investigation didn't involve Hunter Biden. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-29/former-ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-wrongdoing-biden
"Or that Biden used his position as VP to get Hunter lucrative business deals with China?"
That certainly is an accusation. Where is the evidence? From what I've read, Hunter Biden took advantage of his situation, but there's no evidence that Joe Biden got involved.
"That Joe himself kept boxes of classified documents at his private residence and offices after leaving office as senator and VP?"
Nobody is denying this. Was a law broken? Did he, like Trump, lie about it and then do everything he could to prevent the return of these documents? Did he brag about having classified documents that he could show people when he was no longer in office?
I would think that a former law enforcement officer would better understand what constitutes "evidence".
Apologies, as I realized right after sending this that you weren't listing "evidence" so much as you were listing Biden's wrongdoings for which you could provide evidence.
So, yeah, pick one. Except for the first, as that one isn't even a true statement.
Or the last, as it's irrelevant as nobody is denying it.
Don't blame your cell phone.
Evidence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jyT1rnW9fA
I guess it was just a coincidence that Hunter was sitting on the board of Burisma. At the every least, Joe should have recused himself from the trip because of his son's connection to Burisma. What about the mere perception of conflict of interest?
When Joe was VP he went on some sort of economic-related trip to China and took Hunter with him on Air Force Two. While there, Hunter obtained a big business deal (in between shopping for souvenirs.) How can you say there is no evidence Joe got involved? He put him on AF2. Is there no evidence that Joe profited? What about HUnter's laptop? What about the testimony of former business partner Tony Bobulinsky? What about the communications referring to "The Big Guy gets 10%"? Influence peddling by Hunter Biden on its face involves Joe. And Joe met with some of HUnter's business partners-in the White House and on the golf links. At the very least, that's access. You may scoff at that evidence because no charges have been brought and there will be no trial in which these items could be introduced-as evidence- and weighed by a jury.
If Trump broke the law by having classified documents in his residence then so did Joe. But only one person gets prosecuted.
Don't worry, I don't blame my phone. I blame myself - I just tend to communicate poorly when I use my phone.
I guess I'm unclear on what exactly you're trying to tell me here. Are you saying that Hunter Biden committed a crime with this "evidence" that you're providing? Or are you simply pointing out unethical and problematic behavior? Because I would tend to agree with the second one.
"You may scoff at that evidence because no charges have been brought and there will be no trial in which these items could be introduced-as evidence- and weighed by a jury."
Again, I'm just saying that even the Republicans who investigated this didn't consider it evidence of a crime and didn't move forward with it. Why do you think that is? Is the fix in so deep for for Hunter Biden that even the Republicans won't move against him? I mean, this is the original question that I asked of you. Does the fact that even they couldn't find evidence of what they were looking for move the needle at all for you? Or is your mind so made up that even if God Himself told you that Hunter Biden didn't commit a crime, you'd accuse The Almighty of being a Democrat agent?
"If Trump broke the law by having classified documents in his residence then so did Joe. But only one person gets prosecuted."
I'm trying my best here, Fouse, but are you for real? Do you really think that's what this all boils down to?
Biden handed over his documents. Trump refused. He was subpoenaed. He ignored the subpoena. He lied to his lawyers. He claimed that he declassified them. There's a recording of him admitting that they weren't declassified. And this is all just off the top of my head.
If he promptly handed over the documents and then was indicted, then I would have to agree with you that it seems suspicious that Trump was indicted and Biden wasn't.
But to pretend like these two things are the same is to completely ignore reality and common sense.
Just a point of clarification: When you refer to the Republican investigation, are you referring to the Comey investigation in which they recently issued a report or the investigation led by the US Atty in Delaware, David Weiss, who was appointed by Trump?
As for Trump's lies and concealment, there are points of dispute between the two parties. This was the second time, Mar a Lago was "visited" by the FBI and they took boxes of documents the first time, but left others behind. You may be right about your claims of Trump's lack of cooperation, but as I said, Trump has a slightly different version. These points should be clarified in the trial. I am not saying Trump is innocent on this violation-classified documents should not have been sent to Florida, but it looks like Biden did the same thing. You are saying that he should get a pass because he voluntarily found and turned over documents-which he surely knew he had in his garage for several years.
Do you think Hillary should have gotten a pass for her "cooperation"? (Here's a hint: She didn't cooperate.)
"are you referring to the Comey investigation in which they recently issued a report or the investigation led by the US Atty in Delaware, David Weiss, who was appointed by Trump?"
Neither. I'm talking about the one led by the House Judiciary Committee.
This is the only link I could find not behind a paywall. It's from an obviously pretty biased site, but I can't find anything, even on conservative sites, that refute this. Perhaps the best counter one can give to this is that "The investigation is still underway and we haven't heard the last of this."
https://newrepublic.com/post/172627/republicans-admit-no-incriminating-evidence-joe-biden
"Trump has a slightly different version. These points should be clarified in the trial."
Absolutely, no disagreement there.
"You are saying that he should get a pass because he voluntarily found and turned over documents-which he surely knew he had in his garage for several years."
No, I'm just saying that what Biden did is not the same as what Trump did - or at least, what Trump is accused of doing.
If it turns out that they're exactly the same, they should both be treated the same.
Personally, I think that everyone should be concerned with how easy it seems to be to take classified documents home with you after you're no longer in office. The average office job has tighter security!
First of all, I erred when I referred to the Comey report. I meant to say Comer, the Republican congressman from Ky who led the probe.
You are quite right that it is a biased link you sent me. Here is a biased link from the Washington Examiner, a conservative paper.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/hunter-biden-comer-report-influence-peddling-romania-china
The big point of contention here is that payments were made to 9 members of Biden's family but not Joe Biden himself. Frankly, I would have been surprised if there were any payments directly to Joe Biden. That hardly means he is in the clear.
As for your last comment on classified documents, I know full well what the rules are for handling and storing them are since I did two overseas tours with DEA working in an embassy and consulate respectively. The State Dept rules are quite strict and explicit. Shame on everyone who violated them, be it Trump, Biden or H Clinton. I always found it ironic that Clinton was actually the sec of State when she was violating those rules.
We actually agree on a few things.
Post a Comment