House Republicans ask Hunter Biden for records on his business dealings

And Hunter is free to challenge the charges in court.

 

Quite the contrary, the rules were set up to avoid knowing who purchased the art.

 

Just Hunter stating he gives half his income to pops and emails confirming a 10% share for Hunter and a 10% share held by Hunter for the "Big Guy". AND ONE MONTH after Hunter struck his deal with Burisma, Joe performed the service required in Hunters invoice.

 

????? And did you read the email where he responds? Why not? Willful ignorance of the topic to maintain what you sooooo desperately want to believe?

Re: Revised Burisma Proposal, Contract and Invoice (bidenlaptopemails.com)

From:
"Hunter Biden" hbiden@rosemontseneca.com
To:
"Vadym Pozharskyi" vadym.pozharskyi@burisma.com
CC:
"Devon Archer" darcher@rosemontcapital.com, "Eric D. Schwerin" eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com
Date:
2015-11-03 13:24
Vadym-

Let me have one final call with them and verify once more that they understand the scope so we can all feel that the retainer is in line with the work required.........

Must of been a really big retainer fee Hunter was worried Burisma would think is too much.

 

Which in no way is corrupt.
As you said, political parties don't matter to the day to day workers.

You claiming fed workers are corrupt is the conspiracy theory.

 

Then the hiree, is the corrupt one.

 

Of course it is. It is corrupt when its the IRS and FBI colluding to "Bankrupt" the Tee Party, when its interest is to perpetuate war in Afghanistan Iraq and Libya, when it fabricates a Trump/Russia collusion story authored by the Hillary campaign etc.

 

It would be, but since you're making it up, it's nonsense.

 

McCain telling the IRS to bankrupt the tea party is documented fact. The IRS providing confidential tax records on Tea Party groups to the FBI is documented fact.

 

You have no clue what a strawman argument is. Factually, it is way too early to talk whether he has violated the law or not. Oh hell, not even the committee is making that kind of talk or referral publicly or privately.

 

that may be, but whistleblower complaints usually have some sort of evidence. From what I have seen, it is only oral testimony of what they "observed" with no corroborating evidence to support that claim.

 

That would be the next step along with the particulars of what that agreement entails in specifics. If it is an NDA of some sort, then he may have standing. If executive privilege is evoked, he may have standing. But in the end, the courts, just like what they did with Trump, will make the final determination one way or the other. The question is if the courts, and a very conservative Supreme Court, rule in favor of Hunter Biden. I don't think your party is prepared for that option.

that is a long way off. If the committee determines that it does not accept the reasoning to be valid, then a lawsuit would be ensured. Only after that is deposed, would the argument of contempt in Congress would be examined.

 

Sure it is.
That's why you offered up your proof? Oh wait, more claims and nothing to back them up.

 

Yeah - that’s where it looks like he is involved in hiring external lobbyists. He refers to “them”. The external lobbyists.

He is not the one with the “scope”. It is someone else.

 

Not against a subpoena.

Hunter Biden has no executive privilege and what would art sales records have to do with ANY executive privilege?

I don't have a party and this should not be partisan.

There is no valid reason and gears are turning.

 

You need to get better informed on their sworn testimony corroborating and records they produced all which corroborates evidence from other sources.

 

YES from the public knowing. There is nothing stopping a purchasers giving Hunter a call telling him they bought a painting.

 

Of course. So now you support not responding to Congressional subpoenas even when it is legitimate to their oversight responsibilities?

 

So full of it

I'm not sure if Devon or Seb mentioned to you but we are going to start invoicing you directly for Hunter's fees. I've attached an invoice for this month. The wire instructions are listed on the invoice. Please let me know if you have any questions.......

Re the invoice you've sent earlier for Hunter's monthly fees, as it happened before, our bank is asking about relations between Hunter, Rosemont Seneca and First Clearing, since this time the banking data differs from the one you've usually provided before. .....

Thank you for your letter and info provided. However, the situation looks like this: the bank has frozen now both transfers for Devon and Hunter due to the fact that transfers are supposed to be made to two different entities, even though they are done on Rosemont Seneca letterhead.

Your explanation unfortunately won't be of much help to the bank, since now we have to formally present the evidence (in a form of docs) to show the relations between: First Clearing, Wells Fargo and Hunter.
Re: Invoice for Hunter's monthly director fees (bidenlaptopemails.com)

These transfers were flagged with Suspicious Activity Reports that will detail the payments.

 

Oh yes it most certainly is they want to hide the buyers and the White House agreement to hide them from the public does not trump a subpoena here. And which Trump children business records are you referring to and please be specific.

 

You are not aware there is a criminal iinvestigation into Hunters business dealings?

 

I know exactly what it is do you? What have I missed exactly?

 

Again, a subpeona is not the be all and end all here. It really depends on those facts and circumstances and a subpeona cannot break the law either. For instance, no court would allow a subpeona from congress if congress was asking information that violated attorney-client privledge. It cannot violate a NDA nor can it violate executive privledge. We don't know yet if the reason given is valid or not, hence the courts will decide just as they decided with Trump and a whole bunch of other cases. But this is not like Steve Bannon who gave no excuse whatsoever. And that is totally different.

He doesn't but his father does. And he is the one who determines if executive privilege exists or not.

but you are making this partisan and you do support the GOP and especially a MAGA GOP like Comer 99.9% of the time. So, please, stop with the BS deflection here.

That is what you say. His lawyer in his capacity as Hunter Biden's lawyer says otherwise. Again, the committee will make the next decision on what to do. They will either acquiesce which will make you extremely disappointed, or the committee will vote and decide it is not a valid reason and try to compel him to provide the information in which a lawsuit will commence, just like what Trump did. Are you not willing to give Hunter Biden the same legal avenues that Trump had? Or are you trying to play the do as I say and not as I do game here?

 

It is not sworn testimony which is essentially oral testimony. But when the filed the whisteblower reports, there was no actual evidence. It was all based on what they observed and no corroborating evidence to boot at that.

 

Let us know when you have a recording of the call.