House oversight chair Comer says ‘6 or 7 Biden family members’ potentially involved in business sche

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Think for myself, Mar 16, 2023.

  1. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,297
    Likes Received:
    14,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Political revenge isn't probable cause. The 4th Amendment explains probable cause.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2023
  2. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So why is this group of MAGA folks so hung go on investigating Hunter Biden?
     
  3. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,297
    Likes Received:
    14,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hunter isn't being investigated by the executive branch. Congress can investigate anybody. Remember?...lol
     
  4. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember what? On one hand you laud the investigation by congress, and on the other you condemn it. All based on partisanship.
     
  5. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,297
    Likes Received:
    14,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You lauded any investigation the Democrats in Congress launched and condemn any investigation the Republicans launch. So, look in the mirror.
     
  6. Nwolfe35

    Nwolfe35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,318
    Likes Received:
    5,259
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's about a search or seizure. Investigation is neither. Opening an investigation for political reasons is not unconstitutional.

    Unethical, impeachable and just wrong, yes. Unconstitutional, no.
     
    bx4 likes this.
  7. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,297
    Likes Received:
    14,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you saying that an investigation can be launched at random, without any apparent reason? No probable cause, no reasonable suspicion, no nothing? Just pick someone because of his politics and investigate that person?

    Thank goodness it doesn't actually work like that...lol
     
  8. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it was not for hy
    That is simply untrue projection, you accusing me of the things you are doing and find appalling.
     
    bx4 likes this.
  9. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,297
    Likes Received:
    14,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Names one Democrat investigation in Congress that was improper. ONE.
     
  10. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,812
    Likes Received:
    9,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In a deal he made while in office.

    He made a deal and the Saudis got something, and they loaned him $2 BILLION DOLLARS
     
  11. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,452
    Likes Received:
    32,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here you are, Mr. WBK:
    A Detailed Explanation (of the precise legal issues) can be found here:
    The Easy Question: Can House Democrats Make Trump’s Tax Returns Public?
    The law is clear that the House Ways and Means Committee can now make Trump’s tax returns public if a majority of the committee members vote to do so.

    The relevant statute, Section 6103(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, instructs the IRS to release otherwise-confidential tax returns or return information to three congressional tax committees—the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Joint Committee on Taxation—upon written request from the chair of any of those panels. The statute also instructs the IRS to release returns or return information to other congressional committees under a narrower set of circumstances.
    The key language regarding the receiving committee’s confidentiality obligations lies in Section 6103(f)(4). That paragraph says that any return or return information obtained by the Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, or Joint Committee on Taxation “may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both.” It goes on to say that any return or return information obtained by another committee “may be submitted by the committee to the Senate or the House of Representatives, or to both, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer, shall be furnished to the Senate or the House of Representatives only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure” (emphasis added).
    Some textualist judges and justices are fond of the Latin phrase “expressio unius est exclusio alterius”: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other. But one doesn’t need to be a textualist—or a classicist—to recognize the importance of the contrast between the two submission provisions. Absent the taxpayer’s consent, other committees can submit returns to the full Senate or House “only when sitting in closed executive session.” The Senate Finance Committee, House Ways and Means Committee, and Joint Committee on Taxation can submit returns to the full Senate or House without condition.
    Judge Trevor McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reached the same conclusion in his December 2021 decision rejecting Trump’s bid to block the IRS from releasing his returns. “It might not be right or wise to publish the returns,” McFadden wrote, but the House Ways and Means Committee has the “right to do so.” And if the House Ways and Means Committee exercises that right with respect to Trump’s returns, its action wouldn’t be unprecedented: In 2014, the House Ways and Means Committee published return information regarding 51 taxpayers as part of its investigation into allegations that the IRS had discriminated against conservative nonprofit organizations seeking tax exempt status.
    In the definitive scholarly treatment of Section 6103(f), longtime University of Virginia law professor George Yin, who served as chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation from 2003 to 2005, concludes that the choice to allow the three tax committees to publish private tax information was a “conscious decision” by Congress. Prior to 1976, Yin explains, the president—along with the three congressional tax committees—had statutory authority to make return information public. A 1976 amendment eliminated the president’s authority to publicize return information but preserved the power of the three tax committees. “Congress no doubt felt compelled in 1976 to preserve some outlet for Congressional disclosures to the public,” Yin writes, and it “was natural to give this authority to the tax committees.”
    On top of all this, the Speech and Debate Clause immunizes lawmakers from liability for statements they make in committee and on the House or Senate floor. So even if it weren’t for Section 6103(f)(4), a Ways and Means Committee member could—without legal consequence—read Trump’s tax returns aloud, line by line, with the C-SPAN cameras rolling. But House Democrats don’t need to rely on constitutional super-immunity here: The relevant statutory provisions clearly empower the Ways and Means Committee to enter Trump’s tax returns into the public domain.

    https://www.lawfareblog.com/house-democrats-can-release-trumps-tax-returns-should-they
     
  12. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,297
    Likes Received:
    14,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And damn! Not one word, or phrase that so much as unfers that the committee can publicly released a taxpayer's returns. Ain't that some ****?

    Check this law out, that settles this once and for all...

    It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or any person described in section 6103(n) (or an officer or employee of any such person), or any former officer or employee, willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution, and if such offense is committed by any officer or employee of the United States, he shall, in addition to any other punishment, be dismissed from office or discharged from employment upon conviction for such offense.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7213

    Well, sonofabitch. Wouldja look at that....lol
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2023
  13. Wild Bill Kelsoe

    Wild Bill Kelsoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    21,297
    Likes Received:
    14,441
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Kushner didn't start his equity form until after Trump left office.
     
  14. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unfers........

    (a) Suffering from a disease or an injury, unwell, hurt; also, diseased [quot. a1325(c1250)]; also, as noun: those suffering from infirmities or illnesses; maken ~, to injure (sb.); (b) suffering from the infirmity of old age; debilitated, enfeebled; (c) of heathen gods: powerless, impotent.
     
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you are denying they are his emails................upon what is that denial based vis-a-vis the corroborating evidence and statements? Where is the denial from the Biden's?

    And how could the bank records be false?
     
  16. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It has been corroborated. When did Hunter or any one else in the family state it is not Joey? And Boblunski merely confirms and corroborates the evidence. This is THE FAMILY BUSINESS and you believe there is some heretofore unknown third party who is The Big Guy, someone BIGGER than any family member? And we wouldn't already know who that was? Use a little logic and reasoning.
     
    Steve N likes this.
  17. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not here, he was merely collecting money and splitting it up. The money went straight to their pockets. But do tell me and give me the evidence of some product or service that was rendered in return.
     
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Well was it a legitimate business or not?
     
  19. Think for myself

    Think for myself Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,277
    Likes Received:
    4,596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Was what a legitimate business?
     
  20. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,248
    Trophy Points:
    113
    “That’s Not True”: President Biden Moves Toward the Evil Twin Family Defense
    .

    https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/...en-moves-toward-the-evil-twin-family-defense/

    'President Joe Biden has repeatedly denied that his family received money from China. He has also denied any knowledge of his son’s foreign dealings despite direct evidence to the contrary, including a recorded message from the President to Hunter referencing the deals. The White House has simply refused to address the recording or photographs contradicting the President. Now, there is confirmation that millions were sent from China and then money from a third-party account was distributed to at least three, and possibly four, Biden family members. However, when confronted with the evidence on the way to Marine One, the President again declared “that’s not true.” Given that these are suspicious activity reports (SARs) from Biden’s own Treasury Department, it is unclear now what the President is suggesting beyond the possibility of an evil twin Biden family that is besmirching his good name.'

    It's the evil twin Biden Family!

    'the Bidens ran one of the most lucrative and blatant influence peddling operations in history. Influence peddling is the favorite form of corruption in Washington, but the Biden family is truly in a class to itself . . . unless there is that evil twin Biden family that continues to undermine the First Family.'

    More corrupt than even LBJ. Biden is the most corrupt man to ever hold the office.
     
    mngam and Steve N like this.
  21. Nwolfe35

    Nwolfe35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,318
    Likes Received:
    5,259
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I’m saying it’s not unconstitutional. What state and local laws might apply I have no idea. It is what Trump attempted to do to Biden in his phone call with Zelensky.

    [
     
  22. grapeape

    grapeape Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2015
    Messages:
    16,812
    Likes Received:
    9,326
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I’m saying because of the chain if custody, NOTHING can be admissible.

    Im also saying that the Trump DOJ had this laptop for year before he left office. Why didn't they find all this stuff then, and why didn't they prosecute then ? Thats a serious question.
     
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And all this to avoid what we know is in the laptop which has been corroborate and verified by other sources. We know the chain of custody and we now know how the FBI was engaged in a concerted effort to cover it up.
     
  24. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not unconstitutional? How do you derive at that you think a prosecutor can just pick someone are random investigate just to see what they can find? You could be served with search warrant just so they could look and see if they in find something?
     
  25. Nwolfe35

    Nwolfe35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    7,318
    Likes Received:
    5,259
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is a huge difference between a search warrant and an investigation. The police can question your friends, co workers, parents, siblings without ever needing any kind of search warrant or even presenting probable cause. Sure, they could tell the police to pack sand...but that's not the point. Your reputation takes the hit regardless. Again, this is not unconstitutional. It might be illegal (again, not familiar with all local laws and regulations)...but not everything that is illegal is unconstitutional.
     

Share This Page