Hunter - the right got what they wanted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The IRS whistleblowers say Hunter booked income from Burisma as a “loan” so he wouldn’t have to pay tax on it.

But you can’t lend money to yourself.

"The IRS team recommended that Hunter be prosecuted on felony charges of tax evasion for 2014 and false tax filings and a misdemeanor charge for 2015 of failure to pay tax. Yet because the U.S. Attorney waited so long to make a prosecutorial decision, the six-year statute of limitations expired. Hunter thus won’t pay taxes on more than $400,000 in unreported income for these years.

Mr. Shapley says: 'The purposeful exclusion of the 2014 and 2015 years sanitized the most substantive criminal conduct and concealed material facts.""


https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunter-biden-fair-tax-share-fraud-irs-special-agent-whistleblower-charges-misdemeanor-scheme-d8813133?st=yhs1ity2ve6pxxp

Even if it's $400,000 in tax cheating, that's petty nothingness compared to the Trumps tax cheating.

But regardless - another irony here is that Biden actually proposed having more agents able to investigate exactly this kind of tax cheating but the Republicans shot it down.

We are beyond tax cheat here. The tax cheat is because they were hiding foreign bribes

No one believes you and you gang of misfits- you, Fox, RWNJs on Twitter, Russia propaganda, etc

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The spin by the NY Times of Hunter being a victim is disgusting

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/24/opinion/hunter-biden-addiction.html

Remember when Jared got $2 billion from the Saudis or when the Saudis paid the Trump organization an undisclosed sum to run a golf course in Oman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The spin by the NY Times of Hunter being a victim is disgusting

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/24/opinion/hunter-biden-addiction.html

Remember when Jared got $2 billion from the Saudis or when the Saudis paid the Trump organization an undisclosed sum to run a golf course in Oman?

And don't forget about the $750,000 paid by foreign officials from Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and China to stay at Trump's DC hotel.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/14/1136682162/foreign-officials-750-000-dollars-trump-hotel-dc#:~:text=Tiny%20Desk-,Receipts%20show%20foreign%20officials%20spent%20more%20than%20%24750%2C000%20at%20Trump%27s,presidency%2C%20according%20to%20new%20documents.

OR Ivanka's 34 patents in China
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/28/business/ivanka-trump-china-trademarks.html

OR the recent deal with a Saudi real estate developer to license the Trump name to a new luxury development in Oman that uses foreign workers who toil in 100+ degree heat for a few hundred dollars a month.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/saudi-arabias-dar-al-arkan-signs-deal-with-trump-family-oman-project-2022-11-20/

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP got the eviscerating wrong... Durham played the Censored Congressman from California 30th district

Dumb "I know you are but what am I" retort from Durham.

I suggest you listen to the entire testimony. Durham gets ripped to shreds and so many times had to resort to the most stupid and implausible kinds of responses like "I don't know, I don't follow the news" regarding HIS OWN DAMN CASE.

He didn’t say he didn’t follow the news. He said ‘that’s what I read in the news’ multiple times.

He did say that about an item that was actually in the Mueller Report and got caught on it - like why the hell are you talking about "hearing about it in the news" when you should have been reading about it in the files relevant to the case that is YOUR FRICKIN JOB

But to the point of the news, he DID in fact also a few times say "I don't know, I don't follow the news" several times as well, particularly when it was about what he was doing that was fodder for the right wing media. Falsely presumed innocence. What a hack.

He stated straight out that he was only going to talk about what was in the scope of his report. When he said he didn’t follow the news, he was being sarcastic about the way the news covered the fake Russia dossier, etc.

Oh puh frickin leeze. Any attempts at sarcasm from him were limp and pathetic and only showed him to be a partisan hack. And he tried that "that's what I read in the news" when they asked him to confirm how many indictments came out of the "fake Russia hoax" - it was 34, and how many acquittals - it was zero - some fake hoax - 34, THIRTY FOUR INDICTMENTS, and ZERO ACQUITTALS, and in half the time that Durham spent on his investigation, only to come up with jack.

Durham is a complete joke. And again, it's ridiculous that Republicans think "FBI cut corners and didn't fully follow procedure but were ultimately justified in opening the investigation" that led to the 34 indictments is somehow the "crime of the century."

I think Durham was weak. Your position is weaker still.

The history of investigators swore were strong until they didn't get the desired result and then got called weak: Issa, Nunes, Gowdy, Durham. You guys are always sure the next guy is a killer and then nothing comes of it, so you blame the messenger.

[Anonymous]

Investigators always think they have a stronger case than the prosecutors do. It is a central point of the plot of every crime drama, police drama, law drama, court drama in history. If we saw the internal investigative files of other investigations with political overtones, we would see very similar disputes. It is not a surprise revelation that prosecutors want a slam dunk case before going after a politically explosive case. That’s how so many criminal Republicans and a few criminal Democrats avoid prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP got the eviscerating wrong... Durham played the Censored Congressman from California 30th district

Dumb "I know you are but what am I" retort from Durham.

I suggest you listen to the entire testimony. Durham gets ripped to shreds and so many times had to resort to the most stupid and implausible kinds of responses like "I don't know, I don't follow the news" regarding HIS OWN DAMN CASE.

He didn’t say he didn’t follow the news. He said ‘that’s what I read in the news’ multiple times.

He did say that about an item that was actually in the Mueller Report and got caught on it - like why the hell are you talking about "hearing about it in the news" when you should have been reading about it in the files relevant to the case that is YOUR FRICKIN JOB

But to the point of the news, he DID in fact also a few times say "I don't know, I don't follow the news" several times as well, particularly when it was about what he was doing that was fodder for the right wing media. Falsely presumed innocence. What a hack.

He stated straight out that he was only going to talk about what was in the scope of his report. When he said he didn’t follow the news, he was being sarcastic about the way the news covered the fake Russia dossier, etc.

Oh puh frickin leeze. Any attempts at sarcasm from him were limp and pathetic and only showed him to be a partisan hack. And he tried that "that's what I read in the news" when they asked him to confirm how many indictments came out of the "fake Russia hoax" - it was 34, and how many acquittals - it was zero - some fake hoax - 34, THIRTY FOUR INDICTMENTS, and ZERO ACQUITTALS, and in half the time that Durham spent on his investigation, only to come up with jack.

Durham is a complete joke. And again, it's ridiculous that Republicans think "FBI cut corners and didn't fully follow procedure but were ultimately justified in opening the investigation" that led to the 34 indictments is somehow the "crime of the century."

I think Durham was weak. Your position is weaker still.

The history of investigators swore were strong until they didn't get the desired result and then got called weak: Issa, Nunes, Gowdy, Durham. You guys are always sure the next guy is a killer and then nothing comes of it, so you blame the messenger.

Politicians will be brought down by rank and file.

[Anonymous]

He lies again.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Here's what RWNJs don't understand or are just plain being obtuse about: IF Hunter evaded taxes, fine. He made a plea deal and that's the end of it.

Contrast that with MAGA-types running around pretending that Trump won the election, insisting that the government is somehow out to get him despite literal mountains of evidence to the contrary, and screaming that the DOJ is somehow out to get him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's what RWNJs don't understand or are just plain being obtuse about: IF Hunter evaded taxes, fine. He made a plea deal and that's the end of it.

Contrast that with MAGA-types running around pretending that Trump won the election, insisting that the government is somehow out to get him despite literal mountains of evidence to the contrary, and screaming that the DOJ is somehow out to get him.

What LWNJ here don't understand..... this isn't about Hunter.
It is about Joe and his involvement in this scandal. He is corrupt and compromised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what RWNJs don't understand or are just plain being obtuse about: IF Hunter evaded taxes, fine. He made a plea deal and that's the end of it.

Contrast that with MAGA-types running around pretending that Trump won the election, insisting that the government is somehow out to get him despite literal mountains of evidence to the contrary, and screaming that the DOJ is somehow out to get him.

What LWNJ here don't understand..... this isn't about Hunter.
It is about Joe and his involvement in this scandal. He is corrupt and compromised.

Horse puckey.

First off, there is no evidence. Even that idiot Comer said the quiet part out loud and admitted this is nothing more than political theater intended to drag Biden down in an election year. All you've got is an allegation and you're trying to make that sow's ear into a silk purse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is rich coming from someone as corrupt as McCarthy. How’s the wife’s family doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He lies again.

It’s they lie as in Fox lies or they lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is rich coming from someone as corrupt as McCarthy. How’s the wife’s family doing?

I didn't know about corruption related to Kevin McCarthy--thanks for mentioning. Is this what you mean, PP?
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-na-pol-mccarthy-contracts-20181014-story.html