NBC news story on Hunter Biden

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Cool. How much cocaine was found?

found where?

u:

Considering the government can't/won't even figure out whose cocaine was found in the white house...

[ajax18]

found where?

u:

Considering the government can't/won't even figure out whose cocaine was found in the white house..

Doc they found cocaine in the white house and then tried to tell us they were unable to determine who it belonged to. The justice department is partisan democrat and either corrupt or incompetent. Why does it matter how much cocaine they found? I don't know how much. We just know that we have a dug addict living in the white house and that Biden is still selling political favors in exchange for millions of dollars in "paintings," drawn by the first deliquent bagman for Robert Peters.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Cool. How much cocaine was found?

[Moksha]

Cool. How much cocaine was found?

found where?

Excellent point. Ajax denies categorically that any cocaine was found. Maybe in some old Breitbart article, but you know how unreliable they are. These charges are just to divert you from the real crimes of Trump.

[ajax18]

I get that this is the right-wing spin, but it's not tethered to what actually happened. First, there is no indication at all that the judge's political lean has anything to do with her approach to the proposed plea bargain agreement. Second, the agreement as drafted does the opposite of what you claim. It includes a recitation of facts that would constitute an admission by Hunter that he violated laws that require registration as a foreign lobbyist and is also vague and does not clearly state that the government cannot pursue those charges. On top of that, the plea agreement states that the same judge that has to approve the agreement is designated to "referee" any disputes about the agreement.

The thing about a plea agreement is that they are drafted to be so clear that no referee is needed. This one didn't do that. And before the judge signs off, she wants to make damn sure that she doesn't have to referee down the road. in my opinion, the plea agreement almost looks like the two sides didn't come to an agreement on the scope of the release for Hunter and tried to put a deal together that kicked the can down the road on the foreign lobbyist issue. No judge in her right mind would approve that.

I think the plea deal is pretty good evidence that there is some kind of problem with the prosecution's case. The more I read, the more I'm inclined to think that the prosecution is worried that either the laptop itself or the actions of the two whistleblowers in evading the restrictions imposed by the taint team create a substantial risk that a judge would simply throw out the evidence the prosecution needs to get a conviction. Hunter's problem, of course, is that he's almost certainly guilty of what he's been charged with, may be guilty of more, and doesn't want to spend the rest of his life in jail. It looks to me like both parties have signifiant risks in taking the case to trial, but failed to come to a complete agreement.

Res Ipsa, has your view on this changed any since Hunter Biden's most recent indictment?

"The smoking gun is going to be revealed by the first whistleblower".... ooops guess not. He was fired from the FBI and paid to testify.

"The smoking gun is going to be revealed by the second whistleblower".... ooops guess not. He was fired from the FBI and paid to testify.

"The smoking gun is going to be revealed by the third whistleblower".... ooops guess not. He was fired from the FBI and paid to testify.

Veritas do you still think that Shapley and the others still aren't whistleblowers because they were paid for their testimony? Do you still think the whistleblowers were lying? Should Merrick Garland firing the whistleblowers be considered illegal retaliation for speaking the truth that he spent years trying to cover up? How is that not obstruction of justice?

[ajax18]

Another question Res Ipsa, Jonathan Turley just pointed out that he prosecuted in the impeachment of a judge for bribery. The judge personally received no money, only his family members. So why does that fact that only Jim, Hunter, Hailey, and the grandchildren received money not count as bribery. We know that when Biden got Виктор Шоки fired this was against the wishes of the majority of his subordinates at the US state department. Most were pleased that Виктор Шоки was rooting out corruption in Ukraine and were shocked when Ukraine fired him. We've also seen Democrats receive appointments after purchasing Hunter Biden's paintings. So there is sufficient reason to believe reason to expect that there was some kind of quid pro quo even if the fact that the Biden's can't answer what exactly were our foreign enemies in the CCP buying from Hunter's business if not influence?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 569b&ei=17

Here we see Biden was all for putting Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon in leg irons for not testifying to the January 6 congressional committee even when they had kept an open dialogue. Of course since the justice department is run by Deep state Democrats we'll again see a separate standard of justice applied to Democrat Hunter Biden than Navarro or Bannon because our justice system is politically partisan against anyone wearig a "Make America Great Again," cap.

We saw Paul Manafort spend years in jail and bankrupted by the DOJ's Trump Russian collusion witch hunt for his failure to fill out a FARA form. Hunter Biden violated FARA as well and hasn't even been charged. How can anyone claim that their is equal justice under the law regardless of which political candidate or party you support?

[ajax18]

Peter Schweizer made this general point that applies to Washington. Do we the people really want representatives whose families are receiving millions upon millions of dollars from hostile foreign powers for no other discernible reason than to purchase influence from our elected officials? Is that really fine so long as nobody can trace a direct payment from these people to the big guy? This is a bipartisan issue. We already know what Mitt Romney would say. We know what the administrative state thinks. How many of you believe that only the Biden family sells influence? I think it happens all the time in Washington. I think the Bidens along with many other elected officials of both parties (the uniparty) have been doing this for at least as long as Biden has been in office (which is forever). That's why they feel so threatened by MAGA Republicans, not because of their stance of social security (MAGA actually wants to continue that) but because MAGA threatens the livelihood of the uniparty.

[Doctor Steuss]

Peter Schweizer made this general point that applies to Washington. Do we the people really want representatives whose families are receiving millions upon millions of dollars from hostile foreign powers for no other discernible reason than to purchase influence from our elected officials? Is that really fine so long as nobody can trace a direct payment from these people to the big guy? This is a bipartisan issue. We already know what Mitt Romney would say. We know what the administrative state thinks. How many of you believe that only the Biden family sells influence? I think it happens all the time in Washington. I think the Bidens along with many other elected officials of both parties (the uniparty) have been doing this for at least as long as Biden has been in office (which is forever). That's why they feel so threatened by MAGA Republicans, not because of their stance of social security (MAGA actually wants to continue that) but because MAGA threatens the livelihood of the uniparty.

Remember that one time Biden and his family were paid millions upon millions while he was in office by OPEC members, and then Biden brokered a multi-year deal with those same countries to increase oil and gas prices, and destroy America's energy independence?

Whoops, that was the kingpin of the MAGA Republicans that did that.

[ajax18]

Peter Schweizer made this general point that applies to Washington. Do we the people really want representatives whose families are receiving millions upon millions of dollars from hostile foreign powers for no other discernible reason than to purchase influence from our elected officials? Is that really fine so long as nobody can trace a direct payment from these people to the big guy? This is a bipartisan issue. We already know what Mitt Romney would say. We know what the administrative state thinks. How many of you believe that only the Biden family sells influence? I think it happens all the time in Washington. I think the Bidens along with many other elected officials of both parties (the uniparty) have been doing this for at least as long as Biden has been in office (which is forever). That's why they feel so threatened by MAGA Republicans, not because of their stance of social security (MAGA actually wants to continue that) but because MAGA threatens the livelihood of the uniparty.

Remember that one time Biden and his family were paid millions upon millions while he was in office by OPEC members, and then Biden brokered a multi-year deal with those same countries to increase oil and gas prices, and destroy America's energy independence?

Whoops, that was the kingpin of the MAGA Republicans that did that.

Maybe we could both agree that the culture of influence peddling in Washington needs to stop. Would you at least agree with me that the American people have the right to know about these things? Should there not be a full disclosure to the public on how much hostile foreign governments pay the family members of our congressmen and executive branch officials? I had a good Christian African American friend try to tell me that Joe Biden had nothing to do with the money being transferred into Hunter's account? Oh really, so what exactly were they purchasing from Hunter and Jim with all that money? Joe Biden has been selling influence all the back to MBNA in Delaware. This idea that it's not a bribe as long as you launder the money through a close family member and don't take a direct payment is total BS.

[Doctor Steuss]

Maybe we could both agree that the culture of influence pedaling in Washington needs to stop. Would you at least agree with me that the American people have the right to know about these things?

I'd go one step further, that there needs to be significant reforms and legislation curtailing lobbying. An individual's access to their legislative representative(s) should not be contingent on how much money they are willing to spend to finance their campaign. The need for reforms (that preferably have teeth to them) naturally not only needs to happen at the state representative level, but also at the executive level as well as within the courts.