In defense of Hunter Biden

No, do you live in a bubble or echo chamber?

I deal in substantiation. If you can't handle it, then you're not good at this. The subject is robust, complex, it requires knowledge and detail. There is nothing simple about this argument, and if you think otherwise, you are wasting your time, or lazy.

Not one document implicates Joe Biden, that is the immutable, incontrovertible, indisputable, fact.

Not one.

Not one financial document produced by Comer has Joe Biden as beneficiary or signatory.

The Checks to Joe from James Biden are loan repayments, if the claim is otherwise, where is the proof?

Not one LLC lists Joe Biden as an officer in a Shell.

Not one LLC has been proven to be established for a corrupt purpose as none of the 10 or so legitimate reasons have been excluded.

Not one taped phone call implicates joe in any wrong doing.

Not one testimony against Joe is backed by hard evidence.

No testimony given by Joe's staff against him. Other testimony lacks corroboration.

No testimony by Joe's sons and daughters are made against him

Noting that every email and text presented do not have Joe Biden as a participant in the conversation and third party mentions of Joe is hearsay and some have been established as fake.

Noting that the chain of custody of the laptop is not clear cut, and has the potential for corruption.

In fact, all of the evidence thus far produced, it only proves that Hunter Biden did business abroad, that that business is not against the law, plus the fact that he generously shared his profits with other family members, but notably except his father.

SARs are not proof of wrongdoing, says so right on the Gov website. In fact, if someone deals with large sums doing business with foreign entities, SARs are common.

FBI FD-1023 reports are not evidence, they need to be corroborated, and none have been, to date.

IRS agents are not, by definition, true whistleblowers, their testimony is merely a disagreement with the prosecutors prosecutorial decisions, in which such disagreements are common, and not only that, their testimony was impeached by Weiss , Garland and Rep Goldman and Raskin.

That Yelena Baturina was not sanctioned is not a damning fact at all, as alleged, given that some 50 Russian/Ukrainian billionaires haven't been sanctioned, either, and she is merely one of many.

One 'whistleblower' is a fugitive, the other was indicted and the one who was indicted, his testimony was to be the centerpiece to tie all their suggestive 'evidence' together. It all fell apart with his indictment.

What I've been finding is that for every issue put forth by Republicans, regarding the Bidens, there is an innocent explanation. Oh, some things might look bad, but looking bad is not illegal.

The transcript details what services Hunter provided.

All of the 'evidence' thus far is suggestive in nature, and not conclusive.

But nothing on Joe Biden.

Nothing.

Zilch

Squat

Zip.

Nada, as in NadaGawdDamnThing.

You can't rehash it because you don't have it.

No, you don't, I've seen it, all of it, and what I've seen does not implicate joe biden.

And what's more,. you can't explain how it does.

No, you can't. I've heard all your arguments.

If Weiss can't find it, an attorney on the investigation for six years, you think you can?

Give me a break.

and Comer et al, are morons.

And for this argument that "Joe doesn't have to receive money to benefit', okay, so his son, Hunter is successful, and that would benefit his father. IS that a crime? Really? Where is the crime that a father's son is successful and makes his dad happy, because that IS the benefit. There is NO financial benefit.

NONE of Hunter's clients received any political favors from Joe. there is NO 'influence peddling'. Riding off dad's coattails doesn't equal 'influence peddling'.
Money laundering presumes the money earned was illegal but there is no evidence of it. not registering for FARA doesn't make the earning illegal, especially when it's debatable that Hunter was required to register with FARA.

As for FARA and SEC, I'll smack that down in a minute, if you want to go there.

 

Your attempt to smoosh over the facts isn't working.

Hunter is an agent if he takes money from any foreign national. Especially if he is lobbying for them.

An “agent of a foreign principal” is any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or otherwise acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a “foreign principal” and does any of the following:

• Engages within the United States in political activities, such as intending to influence any U.S. Government official or the American public regarding U.S. domestic or foreign policy or the political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party.
  
• Acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information service employee, or political consultant.
  
• Solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value within the United States.
  
• Represents within the United States the interests of a foreign principal before U.S. Government officials or agencies.

https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara/frequently-asked-questions

Try again

 

So, investors in art are bribing Hunter by paying him $500k for art, who is not a politician?

Do you realize that some bidders at auctions are anonymous?

Do you realize some bidders at art auctions are just rich people, no agenda, particularly other than to buy art.

Do you realize that bidding at art auctions cannot be construed as a 'bribe', because those who bribe would never bid on art from a politician's son, not to the tune of $500k in the vague hope of a political favor from a politician.

You're not making a lot of sense.

 

Not very well, it seems.

Debunked here.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...of-hunter-biden.617137/page-3#post-1074691395

That's odd, because I distinctly remembering that question being answered.

1. Consulting Services:
   • Hunter Biden mentioned consulting arrangements, although specific details about the nature of these consulting services were not explicitly disclosed.
2. Legal Representation:
   • The deposition did not delve into extensive details regarding legal representation provided by Hunter Biden. However, it’s worth noting that legal matters were part of the discussion.
3. Retainers and Payments:
   • Hunter Biden received retainers and payments from various sources, including business partners and foreign entities.
   • The funds received were associated with his involvement in business ventures, but the exact breakdown of services rendered was not fully specified.
4. Business Dealings and Transactions:
   • The deposition touched upon business dealings, including financial transactions and accounts linked to Hunter Biden.
   • He acknowledged receiving money from business partner Devon Archer, but the specific services tied to these payments were not explicitly outlined.

The salient fact is that Hunter answered their questions. If the answers weren't more specific, that means that the questions didn't demand more specificity OR that the answers were about accounts that did not belong him, which explained why there was a lack of specificity. You can't blame Hunter for that, but note that what BIDEN DID NOT DO was claim the 5th amendment, noting that you hardly noticed.

But,. what your pursuit on this point does not do is the following:

It does not implicate Joe Biden, and since this is the purpose of the committee, that is the only point that matters.

Because your comparison is apples in oranges.

The issue with Jared is not the legality of his fund, it is the corrupt way he acquired it.

The issue with Hunter is not about his business, it is whether Joe Biden offered political favors to Hunter's clients, which he did not.

THis FARA /SEC business is beside the point, entirely.

 

I do accept evidence that conclusively implicates Joe.
All you have to do is provide it, which you have not.

Neither are you, and so you have made a meaningless statement.

Irrelevant, and, don't count your chickens.

 

Your imaginary debunk, got debunked
An “agent of a foreign principal” is any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or otherwise acts at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a “foreign principal” and does any of the following:

• Engages within the United States in political activities, such as intending to influence any U.S. Government official or the American public regarding U.S. domestic or foreign policy or the political or public interests of a foreign government or foreign political party.
  
• Acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information service employee, or political consultant.
  
• Solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value within the United States.
  
• Represents within the United States the interests of a foreign principal before U.S. Government officials or agencies.

And what was the common denominator of his testimony?
it’s worth noting that legal matters were part of the discussion.
exact breakdown of services rendered was not fully specified.
specific services tied to these payments were not explicitly outlined.

Not what you call disputing something

Nice try but no banana.
Jared and Hunter were both accused of taking foreign national money for elicit purposes.
Jared cleared the air with his provision of documentation showing he followed the law.
What did Hunter provide? NOTHING

 

?LOL, Obsessed much?

Just a quick question -were is the proof of the asserts you make above?

 

Well, but my dad was/is not president. If you wanted something from my dad you generally only had to ask.

And as far as I know not one of his five sons ever had to collect 10% "for the big guy".

 

Well, they are true until you can disprove them.

See? That's how it works.

The burden of proof is always on the accuser.

I'm not accusing anyone, I'm defending, I'm just indicating that, thus far, you've got squat.

What more can I say?

 

What's your point?

 

What, you think I didn't check the code?

No, because all you are doing is posting the requirements, per law, for registration for FARA.
What I posted were the exemptions.

22 U.S.C. § 613(d)

So you think law for FARA cancels the law for EXEMPTIONS?

That doesn't even make sense. If it did, why would they have exemptions?

You're not being logical, Condor. Tsk tsk. You thought you had me. LOL!

The requirements DO NOT cancel the exemptions, in which I said items 2-5 MAY apply, which is the probably the reason Weiss didn't pursue it.

Not seeing a point here.

What banana? You got sh*t. You keep failing,
Pretty soon you're going to get tired of losing, eh, Condor?

Jared? Let's see the transcripts, do you have them? Are there any?

Once we have them, then we shall see what's up with Jared, so no claim
can be made until we see them.

No, you got it backwards.

the correct question is, what did the committee prove against Joe Biden?

NOTHING


Hunter has been accused, but nothing has been proven.

Read the transcript.

The onus is on Comer Committee to find something on Joe Biden.

There is NOTHING in the transcript that has ANYTHING on Joe Biden.

Nor do I see anything in the way of 'money laundering' or 'influence peddling'.

 

Read the exemptions:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/613

There are a few that just might apply to Hunter.

How so?

He is an attorney, attorneys are exempt in some circumstances.

Registered lobbyists are exempt in some circumstances.

Hunter is a register lobbyist.

I said several of the items in the exemptions may apply to Hunter

Which is probably why Weiss didn't pursue it.

Try harder.

 

Please learn how NOT to ask a loaded question.

What do I mean? Do I have to teach this?

I could ask you this:

How does it feel to be a pervert?

Now do you see what a loaded question is?

Oh, yeah, it's a question with an assumed/debatable or false premise.

Duh!

So, stop it, just stop it,. and frame a proper question.

 

Do you have any rebuttal to the truth? Prove Comer wrong..

 

So when will Joe Biden be deposed to get his statement on his involvement in the shady Biden family businesses using the Biden "brand" being sold?

 

You are guessing. You don't know anything.
If it was so simple Hunter would have buried them with it.
And NOBODY would pay ANY attorney 24 million with his drug addictions that is public knowledge.
He claimed himself he was so strung out on meth he can't remember anything.

All he would have had to do is walk into the committee and say, these are all my clients, heres my retainer agreements, and he could have walked out the door, case closed.

All you did was go to the FARA website, find the exemptions, copy and paste and claim Hunter represented China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Romania? Instead, what did they get,

it’s worth noting that legal matters were part of the discussion.
exact breakdown of services rendered was not fully specified.
specific services tied to these payments were not explicitly outlined.

And why is it nobody knows anything about Hunter representing anyone?
Not Joe, Not his business partners, not the IRS, Not the FBI, NOBODY.

All Joe would have to do is step on stage, claim his so represents everyone as their attorney and its over. But he won't.

So you can stop with your made up theories that could blow this entire case right out the door in seconds.
It doesn't exist.

And if he was representing them for a 24 million dollar retainer, he's going to prison for a very long time for not putting that money in a trust account.
Which even shows what a criminal setup the Biden family really is. Stealing money from Foreign nationals that are meant to be retainers for law services.
The lengths you will go to defend Democrat criminal activities while barking at Republicans is amazing.
Your Hunter theories are no different than your 14th amendment theories or your Fani Willis theories, or your insurrection hoax theories.
Which NEVER pan out according to your claims. EVER

 

1. Hunter doesn't represent anyone
2. If he did then he and his family have stolen money that is required to be in trust, which it NEVER was
3. If Hunter was representation them, he and Joe could shut this case down in an hour.
4. His transcripts of telling China to send over the 5 million or else, proves all you are doing is throwing garbage against the wall hoping something will stick.

Sorry, no dice with your guess work

 

@Patricio Da Silva

"Hunter is a register lobbyist."

Great.... please show us Hunter is a registered lobbyist.

 

Biden's son a registered lobbyist since 2001

 

No, that's NOT how it works. That's your irrational and Uber-partisan desperation and devotion in full bloom. Maybe if you expanded your reading beyond Democratic Party news releases you'd get a better understanding of the actual situation.

 

Your comment says nothing.

 

What, you think I wouldn't have factchecked this?

All you have to do is google it.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5646828&page=1

 

Oh, that is how it works.

Two things:

1. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accusers. Burden of proof (law) - Wikipedia
2. You've not provided a merit worthy counter to the above.

Maybe if you expanded your knowledge of law beyond the right wing echo chamber, you'd get a better understanding of a little item called, 'fact'.

You accuse, YOU prove.

the ONLY time a defense has to be defended, is in a court of law.

However, note that in a court of law, what can be presented is strictly regulated.

Outside of a court of law's unregulated environment, you accuse, YOU prove. I don't have to prove squat.

 

Why are you posting a 2008 article?
READ HIS TESTIMONY.
Hunter only has one LLC…. From his testimony, Owasco. Show us his only LLC Owasco is registered.
Not some lame 16 year old article about a 23 year old registration.. how low can one go?

 

I can answer this! Trump has no bottom, there is no low he can't go. I hope his supporters don't emulate him. Hunter is registered since 2001.