Why Didn’t The FBI Agents Take Hard Drives In Seizing Giuliani’s Electronic Devices?

I have been a long critic of Rudy Giuliani going back years, including interviews and press conferences that I have condemned for making unsupported statements (as well as comments inimical to his client’s interest). However, Giuliani may have a valid point.  The Biden Administration sent FBI agents to raid his home and other lawyers to seize “electronic devices.” According to Giuliani, this included computers and cell phones containing electronic files. However, the agents reportedly refused to take hard drives that Giuliani said contained material related to Hunter Biden, the son of our President. If the warrant did call for the seizure of computer and electronic devices, that makes no sense at all, particularly in accepting the word of the target of the search as to the contents of the devices.  As a defense attorney, I often question the scope of seizures in such searches as excessive or overly broad. I have never run into a search where agents refused to take evidence that is ordinarily defined within the scope of the warrant. We have yet to see the warrant itself but this is a curious omission given the seizure of computers.

Giuliani was on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Thursday and described the search of his home at 6 am by seven FBI agents. He said that the agents seized laptops and cell phones in what is believed to be an investigation into the possible violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). That itself is notable since, until a few years ago, FARA violations were rarely prosecuted criminally and most violations were treater as civil or administrative measures.

Giuliani denied such violations: “I never represented a Ukrainian national or official before the United States government. I’ve declined it several times. I’ve had contracts in countries like Ukraine. In the contract is a clause that says I will not engage in lobbying or foreign representation. I don’t do it because I felt it would be too compromising.”

However, it is this statement that stuck out for me:

“At the end of the search, when they had taken about, I would say, seven or eight electronic items of mine … they weren’t taking the three hard drives, which of course, are electronic devices. They just mimic the computer. I said, ‘Well, don’t you want these?’ And they said, ‘What are they? I said, ‘Those are Hunter Biden’s hard drives. And they said ‘no, no, no.”

On one hand, the FBI could argue that they already have that evidence because the laptop was previously seized. However, how do they know that hard drives contained the same information? The search warrant was premised on the claim that Giuliani was a risk for evidence destruction. Yet, the agents took his word for what was on the devices? For all the agents knew, Giuliani could have taken all of his incriminating FARA evidence and just slapped a “Hunter Biden Stuff” label on the outside.

Another explanation could be that the search warrant was narrowly written. The Justice Department could exclude hard drives out of concern for privileged communications. However, I have not seen that type of limitations in prior searches.  In prior cases, the Justice Department minimizes such searches through filtering teams as opposed to leaving some storage devices.  It would also make no sense since the current cellphones or laptops may not have records from the critical period. Moreover, the agents could claim that the search warrant is limited to Giuliani’s records, not those of clients or third parties. However, how would they know what was on the hard drives?

It is also possible that the FBI could say that Giuliani is lying and there was no such hard drives offered. Yet, if that were the case, one would expect the agents to return for the claimed hard drives missed in the prior search.

I have previously written about the Hunter Biden laptop and the virtual news blackout of the story, including the strikingly reluctant coverage after the release of his book. I frankly do not see why the FBI would reluctant to have this evidence since it is likely duplicative of evidence already held by prosecutors. I am not assuming that this was an effort to protect Biden.  I am just honestly confused by the decision of the agents if this warrant did call for the seizure of electronic devices and material.

Giuliani, who earned well-deserved fame as a mob prosecutor, recounted “I said, ‘Are you sure you don’t want them? I mean the warrant required them to take it. ‘No, no, no.’ One last time, I said, ‘Don’t you think you should take it?’ And they said, ‘No.'” Giuliani added: “But they relied on me, the man who had to be raided in the morning, because — I’m going to destroy the evidence? I’ve known about this for two years, Tucker. I could have destroyed the evidence. The evidence is exculpatory. It proves the president and I and all of us are innocent. They are the ones who are committing — it’s like projection. They are committing the crimes.”

This was an extraordinary search targeting the counsel to the former president.  There were reportedly disagreements in the Justice Department on whether to seek the warrant.  Yet, the Justice Department convinced a judge that there was electronic evidence and records that had to be seized to prevent destruction and to use on a possible prosecution.

The Justice Department has emphasized the need to acquire hard drives in its training manuals, including the publication Searching and Seizing Computers And Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations:

The typical computer user thinks of the contents of a hard drive in terms of what the computer’s user interface chooses to reveal: files, folders, and applications, all neatly arranged and self-contained. This, however, is merely an abstraction presented to make the computer easier to use. That abstraction hides the evidence of computer usage that modern operating systems leave on hard drives. As computers run, they leave evidence on the hard drive— considerably more evidence than just the files visible to users. Remnants of whole or partially deleted files can still remain on the drive. Portions of files that were edited away also might remain. “Metadata” and other artifacts left by the computer can reveal information about what files have recently been accessed, when a file was created and edited, and sometimes even how it was edited.

The Justice Department defines terms like “records” to expressly include hard drives. It encourages the following language:

The terms “records” and “information” include all of the foregoing items of evidence in whatever form and by whatever means they may have been created or stored, including any form of computer or electronic storage (such as hard disks or other media that can store data); any handmade form (such as writing, drawing, painting); any mechanical form (such as printing or typing); and any photographic form (such as microfilm, microfiche, prints, slides, negatives, videotapes, motion pictures, photocopies).

This is why I am confused by this account. I waited to see if there was an obvious explanation and perhaps there is one that I am missing. I just find the account perplexing.

We will have to wait to see if this is truly just about a single possible violation of FARA.  However, we should be able to see the warrant and the FBI should be able to explain why it would not take electronic storage devices or why it would take the word of the target on their content.

174 thoughts on “Why Didn’t The FBI Agents Take Hard Drives In Seizing Giuliani’s Electronic Devices?”

  1. JT’s concerns seem misplaced in terms of priority. More pressing concerns are:

    Why was this raid done for a (supposedly) civil offense?

    Why hasn’t a similar raid been done to Hunter Biden, who most obviously was an unregistered foreign agent for both Ukraine and China?

    Why is there no concern for another attempted piercing of the attorney-client privilege?

  2. I can’t wait for John Durham to raid Obama’s welfare/affirmative action, government assistance house.

    The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most prodigious crime in American political history.

  3. Why didn’t they take Hunter’s hard drives? Because they are masters at scoping their investigations to find the things that they want to find and ignore the things that they don’t. It is the same technique they used for the Mueller investigation – they scoped it to focus on Trump and his people and exclude anything having to do with the Obama administration, the DOJ, or the FBI. As Mueller so famously said, “That was outside my purview.”

  4. If Giuliani’s account doesn’t make sense, I think the most likely explanation, given Giuliani’s personal track record, is simply that his account is false.

  5. Plausible deniability, by the FBI or justice department, by not touching that material, as if that electronic media finds Hunter had committed a crime, he would have to be charged, of justice department would be accused of covering up potential criminal charges

  6. I posted this comment yesterday predicting how Turley would react today to yesterday’s search of Giuliani’s premises. I don’t think my prediction was far off.

    “I may have implied that Turley would make comments which he did not believe just to please his Fox bosses. I don’t believe that. As an academic, I do not believe he would make an argument or state a legal opinion which he could not reasonably and honestly defend to his fellow jurists.

    Turley has good faith opinions and states them here and elsewhere. When Fox producers read one of his articles which supports one of their narratives, he is invited on Fox to repeat that opinion. Like any good questioner, Fox hosts never ask their invited guests a question to which they do not know the answer. In this way, Turley has a clear conscience though if he wishes to raise his media profile and increase his newsworthiness, he might be tempted to form opinions which would suit Fox narratives, or otherwise push back at mainstream media narratives.

    Though Turley has discredited himself by joining the ignoble ranks of Fox, the day will come when he will be forced to break rank because he will be expected to defend the indefensible.

    On the news of the search of Giuliani’s apartment, Turley judiciously adopted a wait and see attitude:

    “We might want to wait to actually learn the underlying facts or even the charge before such predictions.”

    But that was not the gut reaction of Trumpists, one of whom tweeted true to form:

    “If other charges are made they will be BS ones just like the one’s with Flynn. The DOJ under DEMS is just disgusting and illegal.”

    Indeed, on Fox last night, the prime time hosts already have begun to spin the false narrative that Giuliani is being persecuted by the Deep State. Giulliani called the prosecutors “crooks” on his podcast. Turley will never go along with this narrative because Trumpism is anathema to his unshakeable faith in the fairness of the American judicial system in which he practices, teaches and has taken an oath to uphold.

    It will be fascinating then to watch how Turley fashions his commentary on Giuliani’s impending legal predicament. The more his opinions diverge from the Fox persecution narrative, the less he will be asked to contribute. His will be a very delicate balancing act— looking for any prosecutorial missteps he can cite while giving all reasonable doubt he can muster to defend Giuliani without buying into and echoing the mendacious Deep State narrative and thereby becoming a veritable laughing stock among his law colleagues!

    Up to now, Turley deftly has been able to straddle the fence in the face of Trump’s political Impeachments, but if Giuliani faces a *criminal* indictment and trial, eventually Turley will run out of wiggle room. He will be forced by his commitment to the law to uphold the jury’s decision and suffer the political consequences come what may. I don’t envy him.”

    True to form, Turley cleverly converted the news story about Giuliani into a headline about Hunter Biden’s laptop! I don’t deny that Hunter is a scoundrel and worthy of investigation, but this article is a perfect example of “burying the lead” and feeding the Fox News agenda against Hunter. On the other hand, Turley would not and will not foster the Fox News narrative that Giuliani is being persecuted by the Deep State.

        1. Jeffy ; You absolutely get high on bloviating. Boring and rather predictable as you are. You know this.

          Anyhow Giuliani is being persecuted for politics. It’s so blatant….. the gummi puppen’s handlers are not even trying to hide what they do. But in their haste they are making bad judgments that will come back to haunt them if they do not destroy enough integrity in what is left of our former goobermint.

          1. Phergus, I apologize for being boring, but thanks for reading me just the same.

    1. ” Fox hosts never ask their invited guests a question to which they do not know the answer.”

      I Jeff, don’t watch TV that much. However, I have seen the hosts provided such answers a number of times so the frequency of this occurring must be much greater than you suspect. By the way I have seen Dershowitz do the same. In fact at paid events where he is a high paid speaker he said exactly what he felt much to the chagrin of many of the people that paid to see him.

      What you don’t seem to get is that a lot of people on the right respect honesty and would never consider shutting down people holding opposite opinions.

      I won’t deal with the rest of the response because you base the response on various opinions which vary considerably because there is some merit to both sides of the argument.

      “Up to now, Turley deftly has been able to straddle the fence in the face of Trump’s political Impeachments,”

      Jeff, what you call straddling the fence is what others call legal opinion where the one offering the opinion tries not to take sides. That is the way Turley is supposed to act.

      1. As a lawyer, Turley is prepared to argue either side depending upon who is employing him. But he is holding himself out here as a legal analyst beholden to neither side (except when he contributes to Fox). So Turley should tell us what HE thinks is the correct side- he is very outspoken when it comes to Free Speech- he is unreservedly on the side of more speech.

        You say “What you don’t seem to get is that a lot of people on the right respect honesty and would never consider shutting down people holding opposite opinions.”

        Anyone who thinks Trump is an honest man is not a honest person. I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep on saying it. People are entitled to their own opinions; they are not entitled to their “alternative facts.” I am not in favor of shutting down liars. I’m in favor of ignoring them by refusing to amplify their lies and telling them to take a hike to find someone willing to listen.

        1. Anyone who thinks Trump is an honest man is not a honest person

          President Trump is more honest than any politician in DC that has stood for election more than once.

          1. Tell that to the ~3500 contractors who Trump stiffed. He signed a contract for $85k fir paint and supplies for his club in S Florida. He failed to pay the company. The company sued him in court and was awarded about $280k as Trump was required to pay the contractor’s legal fees.

            Honest? Ha.

        2. “As a lawyer, Turley is prepared to argue either side depending upon who is employing him. “

          That doesn’t mean that it is proper to commit perjury.

          ” But he is holding himself out here as a legal analyst beholden to neither side”

          He does that as well.

          “So Turley should tell us what HE thinks is the correct side”

          You want to tell everyone the correct side. Turley tells us the law.

          “Anyone who thinks Trump is an honest man is not a honest person. “

          That statement is a meaningless one and hostile because we can point to any politician and say, anyone who thinks that a politician is an honest man is not an honest person (though definition of honesty is needed). If you think Obama is an honest man then IMO you have deluded yourself.

          “People are entitled to their own opinions; they are not entitled to their “alternative facts

          It seems we both have agreement on that statement that has been written over and over again on the blog. That pertains to everyone, you and I included. You have made some statements about individual reputations. That is when the facts have to be carefully laid out.

          1. Meyer: “definition of honesty is needed”

            As between Obama and Trump, who is the most honest man? I am content to let history be the judge.

            The difference between you and I, Meyer, is that I know what the definition of honesty is!

            1. “The difference between you and I, Meyer, is that I know what the definition of honesty is!”

              Do you really? Jeff, you do not show that you understand the true meaning of honesty based on our discussions. You also undervalue the idea of honest open discussions. Being honest can be hindered by recklessness, lack of restraint or hyperbole.

              “As between Obama and Trump, who is the most honest man? I am content to let history be the judge.”

              Then you should act as if that is an honest statement.

    2. Sounds like you’ve made up your mind on the entire affair including that you consider Giuliani as a guilty party. I’ll wait to see the evidence. Thanks

    3. You should try to focus your criticism of Turley, to what Turley is writing. Instead of using proxies, to put words in Turkey’s mouth. Its a much better way to hide your crazy.

  7. Since this morning’s trolling Anonymous the Stupid has made 6 more contentless and Stupid responses to me. This plus all the other worthless ones he made to others. NOT normal. Take note at how limited his imagination is and how he has to repeat the same phrases over and over again.

    I want to make sure everyone sees how Stupid those responses are though I will answer just one which has meaningless contend repeating as usual what another said earlier. The only difference is he lies. My comment on that last statement by ATS will follow though once again I urge everyone to skip reading anonymous postings and toss them, including my own.

    “Stupid Meyer rides. Stop harassing anonymous commenters.

    Once again, Allan S. Meyer projects his weaknesses onto others.

    Stupid Meyer is the nutcase in this picture.

    +10

    S. Meyer is projecting, again.

    Allan, you’ve trolled me for months “

    Trolling was all explained to you recently and now you want to repeat what I said but reverse the names. That is OK Anonymous the Stupid because anyone can see how you respond to others on the blog. You do the same thing to them as you did to me except I decided to let you see what you looked like, Stupid of course.

  8. The FBI is corrupt. Top to bottom. The newst agent and up. This just proves it. If a competent FBI got a warrent for all electronic gear, that is exactly what they would come back with. Not pick and choose what “might” be relevent.

    1. The warrant hasn’t been made public yet. There’s no reason to assume that it said something like “all electronic gear.” There’s also no reason to assume that Giuliani was being truthful in his public statement.

      FWIW re: the warrant, NPR reported that “Costello [Giuliani’s lawyer] said subpoenas indicate investigators are seeking Giuliani’s communications with a long list of individuals, including Parnas and Fruman, as well as the journalist John Solomon, who helped amplify Giuliani’s claims tied to Ukraine.”

      1. There’s no reason to assume that it said something like “all electronic gear.”
        You dont believe they took all the phones and computers?How many “burner” phones would a mysterious international spy have? If the FBI found half a dozen, Rudy would just say the all belong to Hunter, and the FBI just nods and leaves them.

        1. Again:
          * We do not know what the warrant covered.
          * There is no reason to assume Giuliani is telling the truth about what occurred. None.

          I’m not going to follow you down a rabbit hole where you pretend to know what it covered and assume he was telling the truth.

  9. They didn’t take it because even if it was evidence of a crime, it’s now uselessly tainted.

    End of story. You call yourself a lawyer?

    1. Apply Occam’s razor : they did not take Hunter Biden’s drives because it is just a story Giuliani is telling to troll the left. He is the only source for this story.

    2. Rudy said they were Hunter files. Are the agents supposed to take him at his word? I guess they did, but why?

    3. And you obviously have no background in law enforcement. Since when do agents take the word of a POI? The drives should have been taken to verify the contents; also, potentially crucial evidence can be left behind on a hard drive even after files have been deleted. Those agents have no idea what was on the drives, or what had been on those drives. I can’t believe they left them. Maybe Rudy’s pulling our leg…

    4. I am a lawyer, and it is not “uselessly tainted evidence.” Investigators and prosecutors never classify evidence as tainted and refuse to collect it. It would be a judge that decides that and then excludes it. No one can predict how a judge will rule and an investigator certainly would not make that assumption and refuse to collect what appears to be relevant evidence.

      1. If you’re a lawyer then you know that investigators shouldn’t collect items that aren’t covered in the warrant, and unless you know what the warrant says, you’re not in a position to determine whether they should or shouldn’t have collected it.

  10. 3 hard drives? Why three when one would backup a laptop. Why hard drives? One terabyte flash drive is only $40 and is easy to hide.

  11. Jonathan Turley: As a prominent criminal defense attorney you would ordinarily be fighting tooth and nail to prevent the FBI from seizing any computer file belonging to Giuliani not specifically authorized by a search warrant. As you say: “I often question the scope of seizure of such searches as excessive or overly broad. I have never run into a search where agents refused to take evidence that is ordinarily defined within the scope of the warrant”. The big question is what exactly was in the “scope” of the warrant? Neither you nor I have seen the search warrant so what you are engaged in is pure speculation. From all reports it appears the Giuliani search warrant was seeking all of Giuliani’s computer and other files relating to his work with Ukrainian officials, including Petro Poroshenko, former Ukrainian president and specifically whether Giuliani was acting as a lobbyist for Ukraine in violation of FARA. So when Giuliani offered his hard drive that allegedly contained damaging on Hunter Biden that computer information that would not have within the four corners of the warrant. And that is why the FBI agents refused Giuliani’s offer. You may be “confused” but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. But I consulted a friend of mine who is also a criminal defense attorney. He said: “No attorney worth his salt is going to encourage his client to voluntarily turn over any document not specifically authorized by a search warrant. That’s criminal law 101!” So it appears it’s counterintuitive for you to argue just the opposite–unless of course you have another agenda.

    You also claim “there were reportedly disagreements in the Justice Department on whether to seek the warrant” for Giuliani’s records. Really? For over a year federal prosecutors had sought search warrants on Giuliani’s records. But your good friend AG at the time Bill Barr rebuffed those requests in an effort to protect Trump and his personal attorney. Politics frequently trumped the fair and uniform administration of justice under Barr. Now under the new AG Merrick Garland politics has been taken out of the decision making process and the search warrant for Giuliani’s records was approved. I think your agenda has nothing to do with the search warrant per se.. You have long complained about the “virtual news blackout” surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop and the failure of the press to take seriously what you deemed Biden’s “corrupt” business activities which you hoped would tarnish Biden and his candidacy for President. So you hoped that by accepting Giuliani’s offer of the Hunter Biden hard drive that would breath new life into that conspiracy theory. The FBI didn’t bite so that is all very “perplexing” for you. What is “perplexing” for many of us out here is why you keep promoting a conspiracy theory that very few find credible. But you keep trying. So far you have come up with zilch, nada!

    1. “You have long complained about the “virtual news blackout” surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop and the failure of the press to take seriously what you deemed Biden’s “corrupt” business activities which you hoped would tarnish Biden and his candidacy for President.”

      ———

      Because there WAS an orchestrated and intentional news blackout and coverup with the sole purpose being for Fake News and Big Tech to PROTECT Biden from negative press before the election. It is not a conspiracy ‘theory,’ it is a conspiracy.

      Have you seen any of the propaganda media following up on the Tony Bobulinski bombshells?

      We know the corrupt media colluded with corrupt social media oligarchs to save Biden from the “tarnishing” of his candidacy had the real news been reported outside of right wing outlets.

      Jack from Twitter later apologized saying ‘oops, sorry, we got it wrong when we censored that “actual news” story.’ Total horsesh*t. No one believes Twitter ‘got it wrong.’

    2. Dennis here is another brain on MSLSD.

      MSLSD can also be an acronym for MISLEAD.

      You as a loyal MSLSD listener are mislead. And ‘programmed.’

      MISLEAD (see MSNBC programming)
      [misˈlēd]
      VERB
      cause (someone) to have a wrong idea or impression about someone or something.

      synonyms:
      deceive · delude · take in · lie to · fool · hoodwink · lead astray · throw off the scent · send on a wild goose chase · put on the wrong track · pull the wool over someone’s eyes · pull someone’s leg · misguide · misdirect · misinform · give wrong information to · bamboozle · lead up the garden path · take for a ride · give someone a bum steer

    3. Hillary and her Attorney (co-conspirators) were allowed to decide what files, memo’s, emails were subject to the Subpoenas yet here is a guy who offers the FBI whatever “they” wanted without caveat….and they did not take him up on his offer.

      Would they have done the same had Hillary not destroyed potential evidence after the FBI agreed to let HER do the filtering of the data without FBI supervision?

      You cannot make this stuff up and it be any more far fetched.

      Convince me there is not a patently obvious Leftist Bias within the Management of the FBI….I will wait.

    4. Dennis McIntyre you are a stupid person. How would the FBI KNOW what the hard drives contained. Oh unless they had previously examined them!!! Illegally!!!!

    5. From all reports it appears the Giuliani search warrant was seeking all of Giuliani’s computer and other files relating to his work with Ukrainian officials

      How does the FBI determine, ownership and content of a computer hard drive found at the location covered by the search warrant?
      I don’t have time to do the Socratic back and forth to have you come to the conclusion.. The raid and warrant were pure theater for the media to spend the weekend smearing Rudy and Trump. Refusing to take item specifically named the warrant, proves the corruption endemic in the FBI.

      1. Question for those in the know of law and warrant service. Would Rudy have now in his possession a copy of the warrant for reference? If so, couldn’t he release the document online for all to see? I think that would clear up any scope questions of evidence.

    6. You have no idea what you are talking about. Defense attorneys do not “fight tooth and nail to prevent collection of evidence” they fight tooth and nail to prevent anything seized from being admitted as evidence. Do you think the investigators bring the defense attorney along with them when they request a search warrant from a judge?

  12. “Yet, the Justice Department convinced a judge that there was electronic evidence and records that had to be seized to prevent destruction and to use on a possible prosecution.”

    Gee, what a surprise. I wonder what party the president who nominated the judge belongs too? lol… that was a rhetorical question..

    1. Hunter Biden received $3.5M wire transfer from Russian billionaire: Senate report

      Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their report on the younger Biden’s work in Ukraine. Baturina is referenced in the 87-page report, which was released Wednesday, addressing her payment to Biden’s investment firm in early 2014. “Baturina became Russia’s only female billionaire when her plastics company, Inteko, received a series of Moscow municipal contracts while her husband was mayor,” it said in providing background on the businesswoman. The report described her involvement with Biden as “a financial relationship,” but declined to delve deeper into why the wire transfer was made. The probe also found that Baturina sent 11 wires transfers between May and December 2015 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA, a tech startup that filed for bankruptcy in March 2019.

      Nine of those 11 wire transfers were first sent to Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment firm founded by Biden and Chris Heinz, stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, before being transferred to BAK USA. All 11 transactions described the payments as “Loan Agreement” in the details section. The report reads, “[B]etween May 6, 2015 and Dec. 8, 2015, Baturina sent 11 wires in the amount of $391,968.21 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA LLC (BAK USA). Nine of the 11 transactions, totaling $241,797.14 were sent from Baturina’s accounts to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton bank account, which then transferred to the money to BAK USA. The 11 transactions all listed ‘Loan Agreement’ in the payment details section.

      “BAK USA was a startup technology company headquartered in Buffalo, N.Y., that produced tablet computers in cooperation with unnamed Chinese business partners. BAK USA filed for bankruptcy on March 29, 2019, with a reported loss of $39 million. These transactions were identified because of Baturina’s reported criminal activity,” it continues. The probe and report’s commission were overseen by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Their investigative work found that in 2015, two Obama administration officials voiced concerns to White House officials about the possibility that the younger Biden serving on the board of Burisma could create the appearance of a conflict of interest, as his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, oversaw Ukraine policy. The report states that the Obama White House knew that Hunter’s position prevented “the efficient execution of policy with respect to Ukraine,” but that attempts by officials to raise alarms fell “on deaf ears.” It also alleged that Hunter “formed significant and consistent financial relationships” with the founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, and that his and his business partner Devon Archer’s firms “made millions of dollars from that association” while his father was vice president. The committees also said they obtained records from the US Treasury Department that “show potential criminal activity relating to transactions among and between Hunter Biden, his family, and his associates with Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakh and Chinese nationals.”

      The report adds, “The records also note that some of these transactions are linked to what ‘appears to be an Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking ring.’” The younger Biden had no material experience to serve on the board of the energy and gas company, but was given a high-paying seat regardless. Joe Biden spokesman Andrew Bates slammed the probe in a statement to The Post on its findings.
      “As the coronavirus death toll climbs and Wisconsinites struggle with joblessness, Ron Johnson has wasted months diverting the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee away from any oversight of the catastrophically botched federal response to the pandemic, a threat Sen. Johnson has dismissed by saying that ‘death is an unavoidable part of life.’ Why? “To subsidize a foreign attack against the sovereignty of our elections with taxpayer dollars — an attack founded on a long-disproven, hardcore rightwing conspiracy theory that hinges on Sen. Johnson himself being corrupt and that the Senator has now explicitly stated he is attempting to exploit to bail out Donald Trump’s re-election campaign,” he said.

      – United States Senate

  13. Here we go again. Turley’s trying to fabricate a Hunter Biden scandal out of the criminal investigation into Giuliani, AND based on something said on Tucker Carlson’s show. Here’s something to think about: the DOJ executed this search warrant now and didn’t do it while Trump was in office because Trump’s DOJ wouldn’t allow it. Now, Turley, don’t you think it just might be possible that Giuliani not only destroyed incriminating evidence but planted false Hunter Biden crap, since he’s had months to do it? Does anyone really doubt that Trump tipped off Giuliani?

    It’s becoming sad how you allow these people to use your credentials, Turley.

    1. As with Hillary, Turley went full-blown bat-sh*t crazy. And like Yogi Berra said “It’s deja vu all over again” with Hunter.

      1. “As with Hillary, Turley went full-blown bat-sh*t crazy.”

        WTF is wrong with your brain?

    2. An unholy, nay, an insane alliance: Fishy and NUTCHACHA.

      See if they can process this amalgam-of-idiocy in the psych ward.

    3. Does anyone really doubt that Trump tipped off Giuliani?
      According to msdnc, the FBI told Rudy he was a target back in 2019. So yes, Rudy knew, but no, President Trump had nothing to do with the “tipping off”.

  14. “The Biden Administration sent FBI agents to raid his home and other lawyers to seize ‘electronic devices.'”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    My point exactly. America has not been America for quite some time.

    As “Crazy Abe” Lincoln and Adolph Hitler unconstitutionally and illicitly commandeered nations and conducted brutal, political “Reigns of Terror,” at the direction of General Secretary Biden, Politburo Head Schumer and Central Committee Director Pelosi, the U.S. State Security Main Intelligence Directorate is conducting the Great Communist American Purge.
    _______________________

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    – Declaration of Independence, 1776

  15. Hunter Biden needs to be completely investigated and all the facts put out into the open. I’m tired of the whining of the extreme right who have already decided he’s guilty. Maybe he is. Then ,like a blind squirrel finding a nut, the extreme righties are right. But if the evidence shows he’s not, then the extreme righties will still say he’s guilty but at least most news organizations will drop it.

    1. I agree, full complete investigation. And If Hunter walked when the street sign said don’t walk, they will call for locking him up. The Far-right always needs a boogie-man, ask Hillary.

      1. Ask Hillary?

        Can you say Bleachbit, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, mishandling classified material, perjury, making false statements to the FBI, etc., ad infinitum?

        Yeah, let’s ask Hillary.

        Put the lying —– on the stand.

    2. the extreme righties will still say he’s guilty but at least most news organizations will drop it.

      The propaganda outfits would have to report it first, before they could drop it.

    1. Why on earth do you and they assume that she’s a grandma, when the whole point is that the woman hasn’t been identified?

      1. Why do you/others assume the DOJ & FBI are still acting as Law Enforcement Agencies?

        Maybe you & your friends also need a few more GMO Covid 19 booster shots, the so called Vaccines.

        1. After you answer the question I asked you at 1:45, I’ll answer the question you asked me at 5:37.

Leave a Reply