Hunter Biden Likely to be Charged Under FARA . . . If the Justice Department Applies the Mueller Standard

Below is my column in the New York Post on the potential liability of Hunter Biden under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). I recently testified on FARA reforms and its history of enforcement.

Here is the column:

As US Attorney David Weiss leads a long line of witnesses before a grand jury, Washington is preparing for the possibility of an indictment of the son of President Joe Biden, Hunter. This has led to a nosebleed of a turn for the media, as major outlets suddenly acknowledge that the story that they tried to kill in 2020 is in fact legitimate.

Many legal experts have insisted that any prosecution for tax violations would be uncommon or unwarranted because Hunter Biden belatedly paid taxes after the start of the investigation. However, not only are tax and international transactional violations still possible, there is a looming threat of charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

This week, I testified in the House Judiciary Committee on enhancements of FARA and was asked whether Hunter Biden could be charged under the act. The answer is clearly yes. Indeed, if the Justice Department applies the standard used in the Paul Manafort case, it would seem like such a charge is not just possible, but even probable.

The similarities of the Manafort and Biden cases are striking. On a personal level, both men had ravenous levels of material consumption. Where Manafort had his $15,000 ostrich coat, Biden had his high-priced hookers and $143,000 Fisker sports car. Both burned through money and found themselves with towering debts.

However, the greatest similarity is how they paid those bills. The Manafort indictment included charges for lobbying on behalf of the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian political parties from 2008 to 2014. He did not register under FARA, which has sweeping terms covering such work.

While FARA was rarely used for criminal investigations and prosecutions, special counsel Robert Mueller seemed to charge by the gross under the act. He hit a line of Trump associates with such allegations from Manafort to Michael Flynn to George Papadopoulos to Rick Gates. More recently, the Justice Department used FARA to conduct searches on the homes and files of former Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani, Republican counsel Victoria Toensing and others.

The recent use of FARA was celebrated by legal experts and media figures. Now, however, Hunter Biden is the target and the evidence against him on FARA may actually be worse than Manafort in some respects.

In Biden’s laptop, there are hundreds of e-mails detailing work with “foreign principals,” which can include not just foreign governments or foreign agencies, but foreign-based companies, nonprofits and individuals, including Americans living in foreign countries. That would covers companies like CEFC, which had close ties to the Chinese government.

Biden does not appear to have done much, if any, conventional legal work for these foreign sources, despite his high fees. Indeed, there is no record Hunter did anything to earn the cool $1 million given to him to “represent” CEFC’s Patrick Ho, who was later convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

Instead, the record shows Biden advising and facilitating access for foreign clients, including meetings with his father. That includes, like Manafort, dealings with Ukrainian officials and businesses.

There was nothing subtle about the alleged influence-peddling effort of Hunter Biden or his uncle James. In Washington, influence peddling is a virtual cottage industry. However, there was a little sophistication in these e-mails to hide the corruption. The Hunter dealings were more like influence peddling by eBay in terms of the raw pitches and open admissions.

On May 1, 2017, Hunter Biden recognized how his work with CEFC at a minimum could trigger FARA and acknowledged that his uncle was also aware of the danger:

“No matter what it will need to be a US company at some level in order for us to make bids on federal and state funded projects. Also We [sic] don’t want to have to register as foreign agents under the FCPA which is much more expansive than people who should know choose not to know. James has very particular opinions about this so I would ask him about the foreign entity.”

The e-mail is a prosecutor’s dream. FARA violations, like tax violations, can be viewed as cut-and-dried charges for jurors. In this case, the potential defendant not only incriminated himself under the law, but his associates and family, as well.

That is why, if the Justice Department applies the same standard applied to figures like Manafort, Biden would likely be indicted.

The question is whether the same standard will apply. I have long criticized the sweeping language of FARA. However, the Justice Department has shifted from prior administrative enforcement to criminal prosecutions. The Justice Department in recent years has convicted various individuals for engaging in public relations and lobbying efforts for foreign countries, including China and Ukraine.

A sudden shift away from such criminal enforcement would raise questions of favored treatment — and magnify the concern over Attorney General Merrick Garland refusing to appoint a special counsel in the scandal.

In The Washington Post, the Manafort and other FARA cases were heralded as essential to protecting democracy. A columnist concluded, “FARA can be a powerful tool for detecting those foreign instruments. We should use it. No matter whom it ensnares.”

It has now ensnared the son of President Biden. The question is whether the Justice Department and the media still have the same appetite for FARA prosecutions.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.

193 thoughts on “Hunter Biden Likely to be Charged Under FARA . . . If the Justice Department Applies the Mueller Standard”

  1. Evidence Disturbed!

    Hunter’s Laptop Is Scene Cops Failed To Secure

    When the New York Post first reported in October 2020 that it had obtained the contents of a laptop computer allegedly owned by Hunter Biden, there was an immediate roadblock to any news outlet that hoped to corroborate the reporting. The New York Post wasn’t sharing what it obtained.

    The national story quickly centered on the dubious provenance of the material. But for news outlets interested in actually evaluating what the New York Post claimed it had, neither the paper nor its source, Rudy Giuliani, were willing to share.

    Now, a new voice has joined those raising questions about the validity of the material that’s alleged to have been on Hunter Biden’s laptop: the guy who recovered that data in the first place.

    Last month, The Washington Post was able to publish a report based on a copy of material obtained from Republican activist Jack Maxey who’d gotten it from Giuliani. We had multiple experts examine the contents of a hard drive that purported to contain the laptop’s contents. But an enormous amount of the material on the drive couldn’t be validated.

    The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years. Those we spoke with were unable to “reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer”

    One expert likened it to a crime scene that was littered with fast-food wrappers. Yet the first people on the scene weren’t even police. Instead they were people aiming to obtain an indictment.

    Edited From:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/
    ……………………………………………………….

    Professor Turley never mentioned that Rudy Giuliani refused to let mainstream media vet the laptop story. Giuliani actually insisted that mainstream media skip investigative work and report the story at face value.

    Ironically Fox News was leery as well. For that reason the story was routed to the N.Y. Post, another Murdoch-owned property. But even at the N.Y. Post, not all staffers were comfortable. Many recognized that Giuliani was too partisan of a handler.

    1. “. . . the dubious provenance of the material.” “The Washington Post was able to publish a report based on a copy of material obtained from Republican activist Jack Maxey who’d gotten it from Giuliani.”

      So those same sources were once “dubious,” but now are reliable. Consistency is not WaPO’s or the MSM’s strong suit.

      And those sources were allegedly “dubious” (read: Our excuse for not being journalists.). But if the source is Clinton operatives or anyone out to get Trump — those sources are credible.

      I think we’ve seen this horror story before.

      1. “So those same sources were once “dubious,” but now are reliable.”

        Jack Maxey and Giuliani aren’t reliable, nor did the Post’s analysis suggest that they “now are reliable.”

        1. “[N]or did the Post’s analysis suggest that they ‘now are reliable.’”

          “The Washington Post was able to publish a report *based on a copy of material obtained from Republican activist Jack Maxey who’d gotten it from Giuliani*.” (Emphasis added.)

          You are very skilled at ignoring that which you don’t wish to see.

          1. Yes, and did you read the report?

            I quoted some of it yesterday, in my 3:58pm and 4:07pm comments.

            Contrary to your imagination, I did not “ignore” anything here. You falsely claimed “So those same sources were once “dubious,” but now are reliable,” when the Post’s article does not in any way suggest that the sources are reliable.

            Among other things: “The vast majority of the data — and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained — could not be verified by either of the two security experts who reviewed the data for The Post. Neither found clear evidence of tampering in their examinations, but some of the records that might have helped verify contents were not available for analysis, they said. … Among the reasons for the inconclusive findings was sloppy handling of the data, which damaged some records. The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years. … In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI. …
            “months after the laptop itself had been taken into FBI custody — three new folders were created on the drive. Dated Sept. 1 and 2, 2020, they bore the names “Desktop Documents,” “Biden Burisma” and “Hunter. Burisma Documents.” Williams also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared. Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.”

            But yeah, stick to your false claim that “those same sources were once “dubious,” but now are reliable,” that’s so much better than learning from what the article actually said and recognizing that your claim was false. How on earth did you manage to teach students to look carefully at evidence, to be honest, to admit their mistakes, … when you cannot do this yourself?

              1. Yet again, you cannot admit when you are wrong, and you are disinterested in the details that show you to be wrong.

                If you see a bog, it’s of your creation.

                1. Seriously ?

                  Make a compelling argument using details. Or just facts of any kind.

                    1. You provided your usual BS. Take the data one piece at a time and tell us what specific data is questionable.

                      Let’s see, ATS, are you going to deny that the pictures of Hunter aren’t of him?
                      Are you going to claim verified correspondences are lies?
                      Most likely, you will show us ‘Anomalies’ that are left unexplained on any computer.

                      One can only laugh at the games you play.

                    2. You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid (ATS), aka Meyer the Troll Liar. You are a troll, not a good-faith discussant, and much as you wish to order me around to do what you want, I don’t take orders, especially not from trolls like you.

                    3. In other words ATS, you are unable to respond. Let me repeat my post and give you a second chance.
                      —-
                      You provided your usual BS. Take the data one piece at a time and tell us what specific data is questionable.

                      Let’s see, ATS, are you going to deny that the pictures of Hunter aren’t of him?
                      Are you going to claim verified correspondences are lies?
                      Most likely, you will show us ‘Anomalies’ that are left unexplained on any computer.

                      One can only laugh at the games you play.

              2. Sam, you can’t refute the idea that the whole laptop issue is unreliable because Rudy Giuliani is well known for making false claims constantly. He’s already facing sanctions and being disbarred for making false allegations in court.

                Anonymous is right, Turley never mentions the fact that Rudy didn’t allow anyone to examine the contents. He just wanted the media to focus on the alleged emails.

                1. If Adolf Hitler was pushing the Laptop – that would not alter the fact that it has been corroborated –
                  By many of the people referenced by the contents,
                  By external documents and events.

            1. This argument is Stupid

              Glenn Greenwald did an excellent story on this back in Oct 2020.

              It is not necescary to verify ABSOLUTELY ever email or photo to be certain this is NOT Russian disinformation.

              There are two key elements to determine whether this is credible enought to report.

              1). Has Hunter Biden denied it is his laptop ? The answer – even in Oct 2020 was a resounding NO!. Even Joe Biden has never said – this is NOT Hunter’s laptop.
              What he and his cronies have said is “Experts claim it is Russian disinformation”.

              That is typical weasel talk. There can be very little doubt Joe Biden Knew whether the reported content of the laptop was correct,.
              He could easily have said – I never met these people, or I did not participate in these deals or Hunter never left his laptop at a Deleware Computer Rep[air shop and failed to pick it up.

              Non-Denial denials are a very clear signal that what is being offered is likely true.

              2). Has that portion of information – emails, pictures etc that HAS been subject to scrurtiny been Verified.

              Most of these emails had multiple parties to them – do those parties verify or disown the emails.
              As ONE of many Examples Tony Bobolinksy – who was part of the Biden inner circle and had an established record of credibility confirmed the accuracy of everything he was personally involved in.

              You have this ludicrously stupid fixation on supposed security experts verifying every one of the thousands of documents on the Hard drive.

              These are the WRONG people to ask.
              .
              If you have an email between Hunter and Bobolinsky -= you do not send it to a security expert for verification – you send it to Hunter and Bobulinsky.

              You also check the contents against already known facts – where Hi nter was, Where Joe was, or the hundreds of Documents that Sulivan and late Guilliani got from Ukraine, From China, From Romania, from the US State department.

              Do all of these cross check ?

              It is sufficient to check a small portion of this to establish there is a story that can be run. Once a handlful of the content is verified and NONE is falsified, Then it is only necescary to individually verify the specific documents you use – and even then only to the extent they are not falsified.

              Further – as was done before Oct 2020 you can verify the chain of custody of the information.

              The Russians did not fake documents from Hunter Biden or his lawyers sent to the State department trying US policy acquired through FOIA requests.

              It should be self evident right now that while Ukraine is problematic and corrupt – they are NOT a source of Russian disinformation.

              Some of the documents from Sulivan and Gulliani wereafadavits from people or testimony in other procedures. You can argue whether they might be self serving, but they are no russian disinformation.

              Finally for those of you on the left – you have obviously inflated Putin and Russia beyond human credibility.

              Magically stupid IRA adds that were a joke, and favored clinton as often as Trump – flipped hundreds of thousands of votes to Trump in 2016 ?

              Or the Russians managed to manuacture a hard drive purportedly from Hunter Biden’s computer – which has hundreds of thousands of documents
              many of the most damning of which are trivially verifiable ?

              This is the Putin and Russia that invaded UKraine a country with 1/5 the military and is getting their Asses handed to them ?

              This is the Putin with a factor of 20 advantage in airpower who is losing the air war ?

              Putin just fired and sent to Siberia the KGB aparatickick responsible for spreading disinformation in Ukraine – because h failed miserably.

              Russia is very dangerous – they have half the worlds nukes.

              They are not unbeleivably competent

              They did not conspire with Trump.
              They did not produce an undetectable fake laptop drive that manufactures from whole cloth false allegations against the Biden syndicate.

              It is outside their ability.

            2. Just to be clear Hunter Biden has already said the Laptop “could be his” and he has confirmed another laptop – possibly to actual Russian honeypots.

              You keep trying to play games. It is near certain that Hunter has or will be asked under oath questions about the contents of the laptop hard drive.

              Even simple questions – like did you leave a laptop for repairs with a repair shop in delaware can land him in trouble.

              The store owner is legally blind – that does not mean he can not see, but that he can not positively identify Hunter Biden.
              But he has told us that a white male of Hunter’s age claiming to be Hunter left two Laptops with him for repairs.

              He also has a signed receipt that says Hunter Biden and matches Hunter’s signature.

              Hunter’s whereabouts can be checked on the dates in question.

              Emails were sent to hunter about picking up the laptop and paying the bill – that something that Durham can attempt to verify.

              From the store owner through to NY POST publication the rest of the chain of custody is well documented.

              The Russian Disinformation claim requires Russia to have manufactered the laptops – hundreds of thousands of documents – many of which can be independently verified
              Slipped in a couple of hundred ringers – none of which have thus far been detected, and done all this before the store owner received the laptop.

            3. I hope otherwise – but I do not expect Hunter to be prosecuted.
              The odds of democrats not finding a way to stop this are very low.

              This not only implicates Biden – but because YOU impeached Trump for seeking an investigation, it implicates every single congress critter who voted to impeach Trump over seeking an investigation of the Biden’s.

              This will do a great deal of Harm to democrats (and the few republicans who voted for this)

              It is crystal clear their SHOULD be a special counsel.

              But there won’t be.

              And the rare clueless people like you can continue to beleive tthis is a right wing conspiracy theory of russian disinformation
              Rather that what it is – a gargantuan fraud by nearly the entire democratic party.

              Let that sink in – not only did Social Media change the outcome of an election for you,
              But democrats in congress impeached Trump over investigating what hs always been obvious evidence of corruption regarding the Biden’s.

              Most voters are not as clueless as you are.

          2. This is trivial

            Sullivan and Gulliani and all those who were in front of this long before Hunter Biden’s laptops were discovered – were RIGHT.

            While WaPo, NYT all the the leftist media, the 51 “intelligence experts”, and social media censors were WRONG.

            Nor is this a one off event.

            The same groups have been RIGHT about nearly everything.
            The same groups have been WRONG about nearly everything.

            If there is an issue like Say “election Fraud” or Covid, or CAGW or where the same parties are at odds – the most likely one to be RIGHT is the one that has been Consistently RIGHT todate.
            The one most likely to be WRONG is the one most consistently WRONG todate.

            No one is right all the time – but some people are always wrong.

            1. Who is “Sullivan”?

              “Gulliani and all those who were in front of this long before Hunter Biden’s laptops were discovered – were RIGHT.”

              Right about what?

              “While WaPo, NYT all the the leftist media, the 51 “intelligence experts”, and social media censors were WRONG.”

              Wrong about what?

              1. Gratuitous questions by ATS to make people waste time on things already known or asked and answered.

        2. ATS, the Washington Post, chose to lie when they knew the truth. The FBI had the computer early in the game.

          Keep spinning. All you will do is get yourself dizzy and fall all over yourself. We have seen that repeatedly. When you report truthfully, no one will ever believe you.

          1. Anonymous ( S Meyer),

            That’s why so many media outlets ignored the laptop issue. Because it was being peddled by Rudy Giuliani who was already lying so much that nobody took any of his claims seriously. Like you said, “ We have seen that repeatedly. When you report truthfully, no one will ever believe you”. He lied so much that when he tried to tell something true nobody believed him. It’s a consequence of lying so much.

            Turley’s narrative that the media was hiding the story doesn’t take into account the fact that the mysterious nature of how the laptop appeared at a repair shop and Rudy claiming he got a hold of it somehow made anything he asserted highly suspect. The contents were not verified until much later. The media couldn’t report on the story because its origins were suspect given Rudy’s constant lying. Rudy was lying so much that even Trump stopped citing him as his lawyer.

            1. “ Turley’s narrative that the media was hiding the story doesn’t take into…..”

              that the Democrats are Marxists who desire power over all people and nothing less

              – the real Svelaz

              1. You’re not “the real Svelaz.”

                You’re a troll who’s using Svelaz’s name.

                Turley deleted the homophobic comment you posted yesterday.

            2. Your post is the perfect example of what is wrong with the left.

              We are well past the Laptop is Russian disinformation.

              We should have been well past that BEFORE the laptop.

              The laptop is icing on the cake of the massive $hitpile of evidence of Biden clan corruption.

              You rant about Guilliani – but you are on the wrong side of Reality.

              First Guilliani did not start the inquest into the Biden clan – Clinton crony Sydney Bluementhal did to keep Biden out of the 2016 election.
              Bluemanthal pushed the first story into the NYT in 2015 – it was a threat – jump in and there will be more.
              Biden stayed out of 2016.

              But John Sullivan and a few other Journalists picked up on it in 2018.

              The original 2015 NYT story had suffiient evidence to warrant DOJ (or Ukraine) to investigate the Bidens.

              But Sullivan added much much more. Sullivan demonstrated conclusively that Shokin was NOT fired for being slow dealing with Corruption in Ukraine.
              He also demonstrated that significant preasure was put on Shokins successors.

              Eventually there was a settlement in which Burisma kicked back a piddling amount o Ukraine to end the investigation.
              All this and more were well documented facts.

              While Guilliani got involved – I have not seen any evidence that he added anything to what Sullivan had already uncovered.

              Then you idiots on the left decided that asking for an investigation into compelling evidence of corruption was an impeachable offense.

              The 2019/2020 impeachment was not about Trump’s misconduct, it was about Covering for Biden, because it was clear by that time that Biden was the only hope democrats had of winning in 2020,
              and to do so the Ukraine mess had to go away.

              So as is typical – you defamed others to hide your own crimes.

              I would note that though Trump was unaware – the Hunter Biden investigation started in 2018.
              Well before the laptop surfaced. Even today prosecution of Hunter Biden does not require anything from the laptop.

              You want to malign Guiliani and others – but they were Right .

              In the real world lying means saying things that are not true.

              I would note that there has been no prosecution of Guilliani nor those associated with him.

              That would risk exposing even more truth.

              Guilliani has problems – he is old and he has a serious drinking problem, and he made a mess of the election challenges – fixating on the wrong things and showing up for hearings 3 sheets tot he wind.

              None of that changes the fact that the man is a real hero, and that he was inarguably RIGHT about the Biden’s – as was Trump.

              ?Of course neither you nor your cronies care about the laptop.

              You do not care about the most egregious misconduct by the left.

              Yet you fixate on non-existant misconduct by others.

            3. I would further note that your argument is crap.

              If as you say Guilliani was constantly lying. That would not prevent the media from reporting on thing a s that anyone who can read would know were true since 2019.

              There is one reason this is all surfacing now.

              Biden/Harris are a disaster and they are taking the entire democratic party with them.

              Except it does not matter – because Faux Impeachment One made the entire democratic party complicit in the Biden misconduct.

              Voters are going to ask their Rep, or Senator why they voted to impeach Trump for seeking to investigate misconduct by Biden ?

            4. “That’s why so many media outlets ignored the laptop issue. Because it was being peddled by Rudy Giuliani ”

              It turns out to be true. But I will correct one of your errors [ you average around 2-5+ errors a comment]. The FBI had it long before the Post story.

              The FBI could have satisfactorily verified the contents almost immediately. The FBI only had to ask Hunter if the laptop was his. Then the FBI could ask Hunter about specific emails. Then the FBI could have asked the people at the other end of the emails. The FBI could check with the manufacturer based on the serial numbers, the seller based on the serial numbers, and that would also produce the purchaser. Then the FBI could look at the pictures of Hunter and the underage girls he was with. Then the FBI could have taken note of the cocaine. There was more than enough suspicion for the FBI to investigate.

              Your issue has nothing to do with Giuliani. It has to do with ignorance, your desire to lie willfully or both. I’ve proven this before by quoting old posts.

              SM

          2. “ATS”

            You are the one and only Anonymous the Stupid (ATS).

            “the Washington Post, chose to lie”

            You haven’t quoted the alleged lie, and you likely cannot quote any lie and provide evidence of lying.

            As you often do, you simply allege things you find convenient to allege.

            “Keep spinning.”

            As you often do, you project your own faults onto others.

        3. Really ?

          I have no idea what the posts analysis might have said – nor do I care – the POST is OBVIOUSLY not reliable.
          As to Guliani and those who were exposing the Biden malfeasance in Ukraine, China and Romania BEFORE the Hunter Biden laptop confirmed 1000 times over what they claimed,
          to anyone with a clue – BGuliani and Sulivan did not just make claims about Ukraine uo from whole cloth – like the Clinton campaign did witht he steele Dossier,

          They had HUNDREDS of documents – many obtained through FOIA requests from the US state Department of emails and communicatiosn By Hunter Biden and his cabal seeking to influence government policies through out the world.

          There are also documents fromt he state department to the Office of the Vice president documenting what Hunter was up to and noting that is was a massive conflict of interests and wreaked of public corruption.

          All this existed BEFORE the laptop.

        4. Very odd argument – Gulliani and compan y are not credible – despite massive evidence before and after confirming what they claim.

          While WaPo is credible – despite selling lies about this for years ?

          But then again you are posting as anonymous, clearly you do not understand credibility

          1. John B. Say,

            It’s not an odd argument. Giuliani’s credibility was not reliable. What you purport to be “evidence” is after the fact. When the story of the laptop was first reported Rudy Giuliani was already being mocked and ridiculed because of his multiple false claims regarding voter fraud and making false claims in court. He was not allowing anyone to analyze the contents of the hard drives and he only wanted the story to be about what he insinuated it was about. All those actions were deemed highly suspect. and any sane media outfit would have not given the story any credibility until it was confirmed much later. The constant lying from Giuliani and Trump didn’t help their cause and in fact, made it worse.

      2. Too few seem to grasp that the assorted left wing hoaxes that have been exposed – the collusion delusion, the russian bounties, the Russian disinformation claims, all have consequences – both for the credibility of the accusers and the credibility of the accused.

        Trump made numerous claims that we were told were lies. These ultimately proved True. Trump was caught repeatedly – telling the truth, and his accusers telling lies.
        .

        The Hunter Biden story has been arround since 2015 – it was first floated by the New York Times insterestingly driven by Clinton hitman Sydney Bleumenthal
        Amazing how Clinton is at the bottom of nearly every scandal and political conspiracy theory in the past 40 years.

        Regardless in 2019 and 2020 – John Sulivan investigated Hunter Biden’s misconduct in Ukraine – producing hundreds of documents – many from US government sources.
        Subsequently Rudy Guilliani follows the same and related leads, then Trump quietly asks Zelensky to look into Biden clan misconduct in Ukraine in 2015 and all hell breaks loose.

        Trump is impeached in a star chamber proceeding by democrats.

        NO ONE bothers to investigate the possibility that an investigation of the Bidens is justifiable – which it trivially is – and it turns out that the FBI/DOJ are quietly doing exactly that – investigating the very conduct that Trump was impeached for wanting investigated.

        Finally just before the election Two hard drives from two Laptops of Hunter Biden’s – Hunter has admitted there is a 3rd floating out there somewhere – likely in Russian hands.

        And the press and social media and current and former governent intelligence sources proclaim this is all Russian disinformation – an obvious bald faced lie.

        So why should anyone beleive those who called this all a hoax ? Why should we beleive them about anything ? These are people who burned their credibility impeaching Trump, slandering Sullivan and Guilliani, and deceiving the public to tip an election ?

        Clearly these people – the press, social media, everyone in the house and senate who voted for impeachment, everyone who gave false or spun evidence, those in the intelligence community.

        These all owe a huge appology, to Trump, to Gulliani, to Sullivan, to the american people, to the few others who contradicted them at cost and peril.

        And those same “victims” – deserve our trust in the future.

        The price for lying is the loss of future credibility.
        The price for truth is gain in future credibily.

        I would note the same people who lied about Trump, Russia, Biden, have lied about inflation, Covid, the election, about racism, about education, and so many many other things.

        It seems to be a requirement for membership in todays elite – that you beleive and sell a long list of obvious lies.

        1. John B. Say,

          “ Trump made numerous claims that we were told were lies. These ultimately proved True. Trump was caught repeatedly – telling the truth, and his accusers telling lies.”

          Trump made numerous false claims that did turn out to be false. The Arizona election results being fraudulent turned out to be not true by his supporter’s audits. Multiple claims of voter fraud and claims of his VP being able to overturn the election results unilaterally to name a few. Rudy Giuliani’s prolific lying and disgraceful fall from the credibility he allegedly commanded created the skepticism that much of the media rightfully exercised in handling the story.

          “ The price for lying is the loss of future credibility.
          The price for truth is gain in future credibily.”

          It seems Trump and Giuliani paid the price for incessantly lying. Turley wants to lay blame on the media for “hiding” the laptop story. He should be blaming Giuliani and Trump’s multitudes of false claims instead.

    2. Anonymous, no matter how hard you spin it The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico Magazine have all admitted that material on the Hunter laptop was authentic. They may not be able to verify all of the info on the laptop but they have been able to verify much of it by interviewing the people who received Hunter’s emails. According to you if you can’t verify every word than none of the contents are real. Speculation on your part has nothing to do with reality. There is one thing that you don’t want us to recall. Hunter has never denied that the laptop is his and he has never denied any of it’s content. You can try to speak for Hunter but we don’t have to believe your spin. We might change our minds if Hunter ever denies that the laptop is his. I believe Hunter when he says that the laptop might be his because he knew that it would be found out that it is authentic His answer was just an attempt at damage control. Amazingly you refuse to believe your own soulmate Hunter Biden. The other thing that is amazing is that you think that we will be fooled by your spin.

      1. “They may not be able to verify all of the info on the laptop but they have been able to verify much of it by interviewing the people who received Hunter’s emails.”

        Actually, they haven’t been able to verify the vast majority of it. Washington Post, for example:
        The vast majority of the data — and most of the nearly 129,000 emails it contained — could not be verified by either of the two security experts who reviewed the data for The Post. Neither found clear evidence of tampering in their examinations, but some of the records that might have helped verify contents were not available for analysis, they said. … Among the reasons for the inconclusive findings was sloppy handling of the data, which damaged some records. The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years. … In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI.
        “months after the laptop itself had been taken into FBI custody — three new folders were created on the drive. Dated Sept. 1 and 2, 2020, they bore the names “Desktop Documents,” “Biden Burisma” and “Hunter. Burisma Documents.” Williams also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared. Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.”

        “According to you if you can’t verify every word than none of the contents are real.”

        You’re a liar, Ti T. Some contents have been verified and are authentic/real. Most of the contents have not been verified, and it’s unknown whether they’re authentic/real or not. For the contents that were added to the harddrive copy **after the FBI took the laptop**, clearly that subset didn’t come from Hunter Biden.

        1. Anon: “For the contents that were added to the harddrive copy **after the FBI took the laptop**, clearly that subset didn’t come from Hunter Biden.”

          +++

          That raises an interesting possibility. Is the FBI deliberately trying to corrupt the hard drive to discredit it?

          1. Young,

            You seem to be confusing different devices.

            From the same article:
            “On Dec. 9, 2019, FBI agents from the Wilmington field office served a subpoena on Mac Isaac for the laptop, the hard drive and all related paperwork. “He willingly gave it to the FBI and was happy to see it go,” [Mac Isaac’s attorney, Brian] Della Rocca said. He added that Mac Isaac, before turning over the computer, made a copy of its hard drive … Mac Isaac told [Giuliani’s attorney, Robert] Costello that he had copies of the hard drive from Hunter Biden’s laptop. … Costello said he received a copy of the laptop’s hard drive from Mac Isaac [in August, 2020]. Giuliani has said he provided that data to the New York Post. After the New York Post began publishing reports on the contents of the laptop in October 2020, The Washington Post repeatedly asked Giuliani and Republican strategist Stephen K. Bannon for a copy of the data to review, but the requests were rebuffed or ignored. In June 2021, [Republican activist Jack] Maxey, who previously worked as a researcher for Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, delivered to The Washington Post a portable hard drive that he said contained the data. He said he had obtained it from Giuliani.”

            The hard drive copy that Maxy gave the Post in the summer of 2021 is not the laptop or hard drive that the FBI took from Mac Isaac in December of 2019. There is no indication that the FBI has had any contact with the hard drive copy that Maxy gave the Post, nor that the FBI had any contact with any of the copies that Mac Isaac claims he made. You can see that I referred to “the contents that were added to the harddrive copy **after the FBI took the laptop**”

            You should instead be asking who added files to the hard drive copy that has been in the possession of Mac Isaac, Costello, Giuliani, and Maxy, and why they added files to their copy(ies).

            1. The Computer store was given TWO laptops to repair by Hunter Biden – there were two hard drives.
              .

              Further Hunter himself has said that a THIRD laptop of his was lost – possibly to a Russian honeypot. Why is that not the least surprising.

              I am not especially worried about anyone trying to fake Hunter Biden content. that is pretty hard and they are near certain to eventually be caught.

              Many Republicans – particularly those in th enews business like Bannon have a tremendous motive for trying to get these hard drives.
              They have huge motives to spin the damage as high as possible

              But they have very little motivation to Fake content – they will get caught, it might be prosecutable, and it would destroy their reputation – especially with their base.

              Only democrats seem to be able to tolerate constant lies and manufactured evidence from their politicians.

            2. “FBI took from Mac Isaac in December of 2019 …. You should instead be asking who added files…”

              You should be asking why the FBI did nothing from Dec 2019.

                1. ATS, we have to assume what is in evidence. We do know that the FBI refused to answer questions Congress had a right to know the answers for.

                  Once again, you are acting hypocritical or know nothing of current events despite what you copy and all your links.

        2. This is nonsense.

          The standard is not NOTHING is true – until everything is proven true.

          So far NOTHING has been found to the FALSE.

          The most daming items found so far have mostly been corroborated.

          You continue to reference “security experts” – while useful they are NOT the primary or even secondary means of verification.
          People and events are.

          We have pictures from the laptop of Joe Biden meeting people, and we have those people confirming the meetings, or others at the hotel or resturant, or confirmations from Bidens diaries,

          Absolutely there is a massive amount of information – most of it will never be verified – it does not need to be,
          It is unlikely that more than a few percent of what is on the drive is damaging. That is still an enormous amount of damaging information.

          It is only marginally relevant to verify that Biden went to hist sisters for dinner – when an email says he did that.
          Doing so just increases the credibility of the credibility of the contents.

          1. “The standard is not NOTHING is true – until everything is proven true.”

            Very insightful.

            That is one of its favorite sophistical tricks: You cannot know anything, until you know everything (which is, of course, impossible).

            1. BS. It’s not only possible but common to know some things and not others. For example, we can prove all sorts of things in math, and we can disprove other things, but there are also a number of unproven conjectures in math where we simply do not know whether they’re true versus false.

              Same with the data on the laptop: some have been authenticated, but others haven’t. We don’t know whether the latter are authentic or not. The lack of knowledge about the latter has no bearing on the knowledge about the former. You must have been a sh*tty logic teacher.

              1. Let Hunter and Joe tell us which things on the computer are fake. Then we can investigate those things and prove both are liars another time.

          2. “The standard is not NOTHING is true – until everything is proven true. ”

            No one said it is.

            The standard is that until you prove or disprove something, its truth value is unknown (you do not know if it is true or if it is instead false). Learn the difference between saying “it is not true” and saying “the truth value is unknown)

            1. “No one said it is.”

              Yet that irrational, mystical standard is what you keep *using*. Which is why you pester commenters with: Have you read *all* of something? Have you seen *all* of a particular video?

              1. “that irrational, mystical standard is what you keep *using*.”

                BS. I have NEVER suggested that “The standard is not NOTHING is true – until everything is proven true.” Asking whether someone has read an entire report does not suggest that “NOTHING is true – until everything is proven true.” You claim to have taught logic, yet here you are concluding something I didn’t say and was not logically implied by what I did say.

      2. The left wing nuts here are even crazier than the rest of the country.
        Quinipac now has Bidens approval at 35.

        It would be nice if NYT, WaPo … were actually grasping that they had FAILED.

        Unfortunately what is more likely is that because Biden has failed the media and democrats and the country are turning on him.

        Regardless, the outcome is the same most people now beleive the Biden corruption story.

        The only question is why didn’t they beleive it in 2015.

        .

  2. From what little I can tell – aside from some possible tax evasion (as with Manafort) there is nothing that is or should be a crime in the conduct of Hunter Biden.

    That does not mean that there is not an enormous yuk factor, or that Hunter Biden isn’t completely immoral in his actions.

    But they are not illegal and should not be. There should be no prosecution of Hunter – except for possible tax fraud.

    Just as there is not a Mueller prosecution that ever should have been brought.

    Even Durham’s lying to the FBI charge is stupid, and misses a very important distinciont between Papadoulous, Flynn, Zander, … and Sussman. Trump associates were witnesses in a corrupt investigation who got tripped up. They did not voluntarily go to the FBI and falsely report a crime. Which is what Sussman should be charged with – Knowingly reporting a false crime. We all understand why it is an should be a crime to use law enforcement as a weapon against others.

    But Hunter’s innocence – as repugnant as that might be, does NOT change Joe Biden’s guilt.
    The Crime involving Hunter Biden is selling the power of government office. Hunter was the broker, but the Sellor was Joe Biden.

    Hunter had little or nothing to sell but for the willingness of the Vice President to trade the powers of office for the benefit of himself and family.

    The fact that Hunter was setting aside money of the Big Guy – is damning – but even if Only Hunter benefited – Joe still betrayed the public trust. You may not trade the powers of office for personal fortune – or for the personal benefit of some others.

      1. Whatever words ATS wishes to use, Sussman engaged in a criminal act.

        Wordplay only works for a short time, and then people realize this is more than wordplay. It is a lie.

        1. Anonymous (S Meyer),

          “ Whatever words ATS wishes to use, Sussman engaged in a criminal act.”

          Reporting anomalous data is not a crime.

          John B. Say asserts Sussman knowingly reported a false crime, the problem is it’s not a crime to report suspicious activity. He voluntarily went to the FBI so they could confirm the suspect data. They found no wrongdoing. Durham would never be able to charge Sussman with knowingly making a false report. He would have to prove his intent which is much harder than it looks.

          1. It is not a crime to report suspicious activity – but that is not what Sussman did.

            If I observe something suspicious, and I report and my report is honest, but there is no actual crime – I am guilty of nothing.

            That is not what happened.

            Sussman observed nothing. He was forwarding the fraudulent work of others – as if it was his own, and he was lying about where it came
            from.

            If I tell you I witnessed a murder and YOU rush to the police to report that YOU witnessed a murder, and there is no murder – YOU are guilty of false reporting.

            That gets even worse when you lie that I was the source and I have good motives to make false claims about the alleged murderer.

            1. John B. Say,

              “That is not what happened. Sussman observed nothing. He was forwarding the fraudulent work of others – as if it was his own, and he was lying about where it came
              from. ”

              Nobody is claiming Sussman observed anything. You keep making false allegations regarding the source of the data. He didn’t lie about where it came from. Not even Durham makes that point. The data came from a request by the Obama administration long before Trump occupied the White House. You keep making accusations without a shred of proof.

              “If I tell you I witnessed a murder and YOU rush to the police to report that YOU witnessed a murder, and there is no murder – YOU are guilty of false reporting. ”

              No, hearsay cannot be deemed making a false report because you are only reporting what you were told or what someone else saw. You would still have to have the burden of proving intent if you are going to argue that reporting the suspected data to the FBI is an intentional lie.

            2. “Sussman … was forwarding the fraudulent work of others – as if it was his own, and he was lying about where it came from.”

              Durham has not alleged that the material Sussmann provided to the FBI was “fraudulent,” nor alleged that Sussmann presented others’ work as if it was his own work.

              You can read Durham’s actual allegations and Sussmann’s lawyers’ responses here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/united-states-v-sussmann/

              1. You really are thick.

                I am NOT Durham.

                I am clearly NOT defending Durham.

                You seem to think I care what Durham has or has not put into the indictment ?

                I made the allegations regarding Sussman.

                They are SELF EVIDENT

                Further Durham and others have already provided the proof of my assertions – in this and other cases an filings.

                Further still – much of the country already accepts these.

                Do you really wish to relitigate the collusion delusion ?

                1. No, the allegations you’ve made are not self evident, and Durham has not “already provided the proof of [your] assertions.”

                  Either you’ll substantiate your claims with evidence or your won’t. Based on your past behavior, my guess is that you won’t.

          2. Intent is TRIVIAL in this case.

            Sussman LIED to the FBI.

            That should not be a crime but it is DAMNING evidence of Bad intent.

            Sussman would trivially be convicted by any jury outside of DC.

            I would further note – that though I oppose 18 USC 1001 – lying to a federal agent. Sussmen’s LIE was inarguably intentional.

            1. John B. Say,

              “Intent is TRIVIAL in this case.

              Sussman LIED to the FBI.”

              The intent is crucial in any case, especially if trying to apply a charge in court.

              The FBI never accused Sussman of lying nor did it ask him the pertinent question that would have resulted in him being charged with lying.

              He didn’t lie, which is the whole point of the charge against Sussman. The issue of who his client was at the time was not relevant to the purpose of his presenting the information that was collected at the request of the Obama administration. The only reason Durham is chasing this charge of lying is that he doesn’t have anything else of value to show for his three-year-old investigation.

            2. “Sussman LIED to the FBI.”

              18 U.S. Code § 1001 requires that it be a “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation,” so the government has to prove materiality. Again: Judge Cooper ruled against Sussmann’s motion to dismiss before trial (where Sussmann’s lawyers argued that even if he made the alleged false statement, it wasn’t materially false), concluding that “while Sussmann is correct that certain statements might be so peripheral or unimportant to a relevant agency decision or function to be immaterial under § 1001 as matter of law, the Court is unable to make that determination as to this alleged statement before hearing the government’s evidence. Any such decision must therefore wait until trial.”

              So we will have to wait and see — after the government presents its evidence of materiality at trial — how Cooper ultimately rules on the question of materiality. Depending on that ruling, either the case will be dismissed at that point or the jury will decide.

              “Sussmen’s LIE was inarguably intentional.”

              Again: unless it’s materially false, it is not illegal.

              1. “18 U.S. Code § 1001 requires that it be a “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, …Again: unless it’s materially false, it is not illegal.” It is fantastic how Anonymous the Stupid applies this US code to Sussman but denies it to Flynn.

                Dishonesty.

                  1. Who I may or may be doesn’t solve your problem. I tell the truth. You don’t.

                    You had one story about “18 U.S. Code § 1001” when dealing with Flynn and another for Sussman.

                    Your problem, ATS, isn’t me. Instead, it is that you are a hypocrite and a liar.

                    1. Nope. For both Sussmann and Flynn I pointed out the actual text of 18 U.S. Code § 1001 and that it requires 3 conditions: false, knowing, material.

                      In Flynn’s case, the DOJ explained more than once why Flynn’s false statements were material to their investigation (e.g., in section IV of Document 132), and Judge Sullivan ruled they were material in Document 144 on 12/16/19. I pointed this out here: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/03/flynn-embraces-call-for-trump-to-declare-martial-law-to-hold-new-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2032528
                      Document 132 and Sullivan’s ruling 144 are here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/?page=2

                      Durham has not yet presented evidence that Sussmann’s alleged false claim was material. Durham has said that he will do so at trial, and Judge Cooper has stated that “while Sussmann is correct that certain statements might be so peripheral or unimportant to a relevant agency decision or function to be immaterial under § 1001 as matter of law, the Court is unable to make that determination as to this alleged statement before hearing the government’s evidence. Any such decision must therefore wait until trial.”

                      So we will have to wait and see — after the government presents its evidence of materiality at trial — how Cooper ultimately rules on the question of materiality. Depending on that ruling, either the case will be dismissed at that point or the jury will decide.

                      You are the liar Meyer. That is why your nickname is Meyer the Troll Liar, aka the one and only Anonymous the Stupid

                    2. ATS, you don’t care about the logic of the decisions made. That is why you want the Constitution thought of as a living document so that it can change when circumstances change, and you no longer wish to live under the laws you promoted earlier. You are a hypocrite.

                      Sullivan’s decision applied to Sussman would make Sussman more guilty than Flynn.

                      By the way, what was the material lie you think Flynn made? Remember, Flynn’s discussion was on tape, which the FBI held. Based on Flynn’s job descriptions, he was aware of that.

                      You are a hypocrite trying to cover your tracks. Deal with the “crime.” What was Flynn’s material lie?
                      ——–
                      prior post: “18 U.S. Code § 1001 requires that it be a “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, …Again: unless it’s materially false, it is not illegal.”

                      It is fantastic how Anonymous the Stupid applies this US code to Sussman but denies it to Flynn.
                      Dishonesty.”

                    3. “Sullivan’s decision applied to Sussman would make Sussman more guilty than Flynn.”

                      Meyer the Troll Liar, aka the one and only Anonymous the Stupid: Judge Cooper stated that “while Sussmann is correct that certain statements might be so peripheral or unimportant to a relevant agency decision or function to be immaterial under § 1001 as matter of law, the Court is unable to make that determination as to this alleged statement before hearing the government’s evidence. Any such decision must therefore wait until trial.”

                      Because you are Stupid, you pretend to know that it’s material without waiting to hear the evidence.

                      Because the Judge is not stupid like you, he is waiting to hear the evidence. So am I.

                    4. ATS, your selected judge’s statements are not meaningful to the discussion. He is not being accused of hypocrisy. You are. The judge hasn’t compared the data relating to Flynn and Sussman, so one can’t say he is or isn’t a hypocrite. However, you have done a lot of talking on the subject, and you speak from two sides of your mouth when dealing with Sussman and Flynn.

                      Take note of how you won’t compare the claim and how that claim should be viewed in Sussman’s and Flynn’s cases. Instead, you get angry and insult me. Do you know why? Because you are mad at yourself. You cannot come up with good arguments, so you deflect, lie and insult.
                      ——
                      For reference, I provide an earlier post: “18 U.S. Code § 1001 requires that it be a “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, …Again: unless it’s materially false, it is not illegal.”

                      It is fantastic how Anonymous the Stupid applies this US code to Sussman but denies it to Flynn.
                      Dishonesty.”

                    5. LOL that you insult me daily but complain about being insulted in return. As ye sow, so ye shall reap.

                    6. I don’t complain about your insults. They are meaningless. I told you what the insult meant. ” Instead, you get angry and insult me. Do you know why? Because you are mad at yourself. You cannot come up with good arguments, so you deflect, lie and insult.

                    7. No, Meyer the Troll Liar, I’m not angry, just calling out your trolling for what it is.

                      As is often the case with your trolling, “you are mad at yourself. You cannot come up with good arguments, so you deflect, lie and insult” is simply projection.

                      You keep trying to get me to behave according to your desires. I don’t care about your desires.

                    8. I understand a significant part of your problems. You are unimaginative. You even copy what I say in order to respond. That is because you let your brain set in concrete. Try a mixer and deal with the topic.
                      —–
                      For reference, I provide an earlier post: “18 U.S. Code § 1001 requires that it be a “materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation, …Again: unless it’s materially false, it is not illegal.”

                      It is fantastic how Anonymous the Stupid applies this US code to Sussman but denies it to Flynn.
                      Dishonesty.”

                1. I have said over and over again that I do not like 18 USC 1001 – nor did RBG – for good reason.

                  I do no understand why Durham did not go with false reporting. that is obviously true and does not rely on a law that should have been found unconstitutional.

                  BTW it is ALWAYS material that you LIED about the source of the information when reporting crime.

                  It is NEVER material when you are accused of lying AFTER the investigation is over.

                  1. According to you, what is the statute under which he should have been indicted, and what’s your evidence that he violated that statute?

                    Saying “I do not like 18 USC 1001” does not tell us what statute YOU would have used.

                  2. Sorry, I only just saw your comment this morning that “In another post I cited 18 USC 35.”

                    But if that’s the statute you would have charged, you still have to provide evidence that he violated that statute — you need to prove that the information Sussmann actually relayed was false and that Sussmann knew it to be false.

              2. First you STILL can not read.

                18 USC 1001 is NOT the defintion of LIE.

                Sussman LIED to the FBI – that is beyond any doubt at all.

                Pretending you are disproving that assertion by citing 18 USC 1001 is deceptive and wrong.
                .
                I really do not care about 18 USC 1001 – as I have said repeatedly it should be unconstitutional.

                But as you are fixated on it – an afirmative, unforced, false allegation of potential criminal activity to the FBI is ALWAYS material – that is pretty much by defintion.

                In so many ways materiality is established by definition.

                The purpose of Sussman’s contacting the FBI was to start an investigation.
                His entire conversation – short of ancillary comments on the weather or baseball would be material.

                What we have to “wait and see” is whether a DC Jury is capable of convicting a democrat when that would benefit Trump.

                Fat chance in Hell.

                1. “Sussman LIED to the FBI”

                  Yet you don’t specify what lie you’re alleging.

                  “I really do not care about 18 USC 1001 ”

                  So according to you, what statute should he have been charged under instead?

                  “an afirmative, unforced, false allegation of potential criminal activity to the FBI is ALWAYS material”

                  Durham hasn’t alleged that. If you’re saying that Durham is charging Sussmann with knowingly making material false statement X, but you think Sussmann should be charged with knowingly making material false statement Y, then you need to tell us what Y is.

                  Durham says X = “on or about September 19, 2016, the defendant stated to the General Counsel of the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying particular allegations concerning a Presidential candidate, when in truth, and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, he was acting on behalf of specific clients, namely, Tech Executive-1 and the Clinton Campaign.”

                  Now you: Y = __________

                  “The purpose of Sussman’s contacting the FBI was to start an investigation.”

                  His lawyers have described it as follows: “On September 19, 2016, Michael Sussmann … met alone with James Baker, then the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), to alert him that a major media outlet was about to publish an article about suspicious internet contacts between the Trump Organization and a certain Russian Bank. Mr. Sussmann arranged for this meeting on behalf of his client, a cyber expert involved in identifying and analyzing the relevant data underlying the suspicious internet contacts. And Mr. Sussmann did so to make the FBI aware of the matter, which raised national security concerns, and to ensure that the FBI would not be caught off guard when the article was published.”

                  Baker has testified under oath on 10/18/18 that “the FBI accepts information and encourages the public to provide the FBI with information as much as possible.”

                  Further testimony from Baker in that same session:
                  Q Did you think there was anything improper about you receiving the information yourself?
                  A At that time, no, I did not think it was anything improper. I was aware of the fact that I was taking in evidence and wanted to quickly get it to agents as fast as I could. But I didn’t — it did not strike me as unethical, improper, illegal, contrary to FBI policy, or anything like that.
                  Q And you said “at that time.” Do you still hold that belief?
                  A Yes.

                  Q How did Mr. Sussmann get the information that he gave you, do you know?
                  A To the best of my recollection, he told me that it had been obtained by some type of cyber experts, and I don’t know
                  who — how they started their inquiry into this. But that is what he told me, that some certain cyber experts had obtained information about some anomalous looking thing … he told me that the press had some or all of this information. [end excerpt]

                  So again: if you think Sussmann should be charged with knowingly making material false statement Y, then you need to tell us what Y is.

                2. Again, I only just saw your other comment this morning that “In another post I cited 18 USC 35.”

                  If that’s the statute you would have charged, you still have to provide evidence that he violated 18 USC 35 — you need to prove that the information Sussmann actually relayed was false and that Sussmann knew it to be false.

          3. Svelaz, there is no reason to respond because you don’t know what you are talking about. You are repeating ATS’s words. That is what you do; repeat the words of others. Only by accident are your conclusions correct.

            SM

        2. John claimed “Sussman should be charged with – Knowingly reporting a false crime.”

          Durham has not alleged that Sussmann reported a crime at all, much less that Sussmann knowingly reported “a false crime.”

          As for your claim that “Sussman engaged in a criminal act,” he has been charged with a crime. He has not yet been found guilty of a crime. We’ll have to wait and see the outcome of the trial.

          The case goes to trial in mid-May. Yesterday, Judge Cooper ruled against Sussmann’s motion to dismiss before trial (where Sussmann’s lawyers argued that even if he made the alleged false statement, it wasn’t materially false), concluding that “while Sussmann is correct that certain statements might be so peripheral or unimportant to a relevant agency decision or function to be immaterial under § 1001 as matter of law, the Court is unable to make that determination as to this alleged statement before hearing the government’s evidence. Any such decision must therefore wait until trial.”

          So we will have to wait and see — after the government presents its evidence of materiality at trial — how Cooper ultimately rules on the question of materiality. Depending on that ruling, either the case will be dismissed at that point or the jury will decide.

          You, of course, do not bother to understand the relevant details. You’re a hate-filled troll who lives to complain about and insult liberals.

          1. Correct, I do not support Durham or Mueller or anyone else using the idiotic 18 USC 1001 “lying to a federal agent statute.

            We saw how that can be evilly and politically abused already.

            That said there is ZERO doubt Sussman LIED – Durham has provided a Text from Sussman’s phone repeating the lie.

            I have not yet heard any claim that text is “fake”.

            There is also no doubt the report was FALSE – we have wasted 4 years, massive amounts of time investigating all of this – Despite his desperation to prove even the tiniest bit True – Mueller ultimately proved EVERYTHING False.

            Like you he was unable to get from – There is absolutely no evidence at all, after the worlds largest investigation ever – by the FBI, DOJ, SC, and nearly every media outlet in the world to the correct conclusion – there was no collusion.

            Regardless, there is no crime, not the slightest evidence of a crime. All the evidence Sussman provided was a HOAX from his employers – and that HAS actually been proven.

            And Sussman LIED to the FBI about the sources and his reasons for coming forward – that IS INTENT.

            I agree this will be hard to prove in court – but only because Durham is likely to have to proceed in DC or another corrupt jurisdiction.

            And face a jury like you – who will convict any republican and exhonerate any democrat.
            Regardless of evidence.

            1. ” I do not support Durham or Mueller or anyone else using the idiotic 18 USC 1001 “lying to a federal agent statute. ”

              So what statute do you want him charged under, and what is your evidence that that statute applies?

              “Durham is likely to have to proceed in DC or another corrupt jurisdiction.”

              For goodness sakes, the venue is already 100% known. It’s not a matter of likelihood. It’s been know since last September, when Sussmann was indicted.

              How sad that you assume that it’s impossible for the prosecution and defense to jointly find an ethical jury in a city of over 690,000 people.

              1. In another post I cited 18 USC 35, which appears to be the federal equivalant of filing false reports.
                It more accurately fits the facts.

                But I would be surprised if there are not other crimes that better fit the fact pattern.

                18 USC 1001 is a very old statute. It was NOT intended for law enforcement.

                It was passed because laws were passed requiring businesses to provide information to government – and people just lied – because that was not illegal.
                20 witnesses
                As to the possibility of finding an ethical jury.

                It is quite sad that in democratic parts of the country it is near impossible to seat one for any case that has political elements.

                It is still true.

                Durham could not convict a democrat in DC of rape if there was video and 20 witnesses – especially if a conviction would make Trump look good.

                Finally – why are you demanding from me things you are perfectly capable of finding yourself and obviously exist ?

                Do you honestly believe there is no federal false reports statute ?

                1. “In another post I cited 18 USC 35”

                  OK. That statute refers, in part, to: “Whoever imparts or conveys or causes to be imparted or conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this chapter or chapter 97 or chapter 111 of this title …”

                  Now you need to prove that the information Sussmann actually relayed was false and that Sussmann knew it to be false.

                  “why are you demanding from me things you are perfectly capable of finding yourself and obviously exist ?”

                  Because each person in a debate has a burden to prove their own claims. I’m responsible for providing evidence of my claims when asked, and you’re responsible for providing evidence of your claims when asked. I am not going to go searching on your behalf. If you don’t want to substantiate your own claims, then they’re just unsubstantiated allegations.

                  1. “Now you need to prove that the information Sussmann actually relayed was false and that Sussmann knew it to be false.”

                    Let me correct you statement Mr. ATS Hypocrite, and then you can run through all your hoops while standing still and doing nothing.

                    Now you need to prove that the information Flynn actually relayed was false and that Flynn knew it to be false and was material.

                    We all wait.

                    1. The Judge already ruled that it was material and that Flynn knew it was false. In my 9:07am comment, I told you the date that Judge Sullivan made that ruling, gave you the document #, and a link to the docket.

                      You want to relitigate Judge Sullivan’s ruling. As the Stones sing, You Can’t Always Get What You Want.

                    2. Sullivan said many things surrounded all his statements, and the issue was never litigated. You provide quotes and conclusions not based on all the facts.

                      The simple way to handle this is for you to pick through all your quotes, links, and statements and provide the statement Flynn made that was material while at the same time matching it up to the law.

                      You can’t, and that is why you rely on all the cr-p and statements based on only half the information. It’s deceitful and such deceit should be called a lie.

          2. Lets try a different tack.

            You want to fixate on whether Sussman had “intent”.

            Lets assume for the sake of argument that he did not.

            This is still a FALSE REPORT no matter what. It is STILL a crime no matter what.

            If you claim Sussman is innocent because of lack of intent – all you are saying is that the Clinton Campaign is Gulty.

            You can not take an obvious crime – False reporting, and convert it to a legitimate act, by running it through a third party – even a lawyer.

            Either Sussman isguilty of false reports or his employers – the Clinton campaign are – or BOTH.

            The alternative is that anyone can make false claims about any rival without consequence – so long as they make them through a lawyer.

            I would note that in impeaching Trump – you CLEARLY wedded yourself to the proposition that it is illegal to seek the investigation of a political rival.

            The difference between Trump seeking an investigation of the Biden’s in Ukraine is there is plenty of probable cause that there was illegal conduct.
            While the Collusion delusion was a HOAX from day one.

            You may not have known that. Sussman will get the chance to prove he did not know that.
            But the Clinton campaign did know that. The authors of a HOAX prima fascia know that their manufactured claims are false.

            1. “Lets assume for the sake of argument that he did not [intentionally make a false claim]. This is still a FALSE REPORT no matter what. It is STILL a crime no matter what.”

              No, actually, for a false statement to the FBI to be crime, it not only has to be false, but intentionally false and materially false. 18 U.S. Code § 1001:
              whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully
              (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
              (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
              (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
              shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years …

              “I would note that in impeaching Trump – you CLEARLY wedded yourself to the proposition that it is illegal to seek the investigation of a political rival. ”

              NO.

              It is illegal to attempt to extort the head of a foreign government to investigate a political rival, under 52 U.S. Code § 30121. It is not illegal to seek the investigation of a political rival in ways that abide by US law.

              1. Aparently you can not read

                I have no interest in your mis understanding of 18 USC 1001 – which should have been found unconstitutional.

                Try 18 USC 35 Imparting or conveying false information

          3. One cannot tell who ATS is responding to in this post. He could be responding to John or me.

            It matters little as it started with ATS playing word games and injecting words into the discussion to deceive others about what the debate is all about. As said before, there are only so many times ATS can use wordplay before others recognize his deceit.

            At present, Sussman has been charged with a crime.

            Wordplay only works for a short time, and then people realize this is more than wordplay. It is a lie. Trying to obfuscate, ATS chose this unusual description “anomalous data.” That doesn’t matter other than demonstrating the type of guy ATS is. We will hear from the court whether or not he is found guilty.

            That being said, I stated long ago that I didn’t think the Durham investigations would lead to many convictions. I don’t think it was meant to. If it were, Clinesmith wouldn’t get his law license back, and a lot more would have been revealed a long time ago.

            SM

            1. The Durham investigation has completely ground to dust the entire foundations for 4 years of attacks on Trump and the Trump campaign.

              As such it has been very effective.

              The question is what will its long term impact be ?

              Absent prosecutions and Significant sentences for those inside Government part of this conspiracy – this will continue again and again.

              I did not completely agree with Barr but I respected and defended him as AG.

              But Ultimately he was a disaster.

              Why ? because everything returned to its prior rotten corrupt state the moment he vacated the office.

              Mostly restoring the rule of law for 2 years inside the FBI and DOJ is not a great accomplishment if it does not last.

              Further the Whitmer kidnapping mess occured on his watch.

        3. I agree, but there is a significant difference between “lying to the FBI” and false criminal reports.

          To my knowledge “lying to law enforcement” is not illegal in any state in the country.
          While false reports of crimes is illegal throughout the country.

          A false report is a lie – but all lies are not false reports.

          Sussman was not lying to protect his ass.
          He was not the target of investigation,
          He did not make a mistake about a detail.
          He came to the FBI, they did no come to him.

          He lied freely – without any compulsion or pressure and he did so to persuade the FBI to start an investigation into something he knew to be false.
          He knew that what he was reporting was either false or at the very least there was no reason to actually beleive it was true.

          The evidence Sussman brought to the FBI was a hoax and he knew it.

          1. “He lied freely”

            Durham certainly hasn’t charged him with lying freely.

            Durham has charged him with a single lie: “On or about September 19, 2016, within the District of Columbia, MICHAEL A.
            SUSSMANN, the defendant, did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement or representation in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, to wit, on or about September 19, 2016, the defendant stated to the General Counsel of the FBI that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying particular allegations concerning a Presidential candidate, when in truth, and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, he was acting on behalf of specific clients, namely, Tech Executive-1 and the Clinton Campaign.”

            “The evidence Sussman brought to the FBI was a hoax and he knew it.”

            Durham hasn’t alleged that the evidence was a hoax, and you haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever to support your claim.

          2. John B. Say,

            “ He lied freely – without any compulsion or pressure and he did so to persuade the FBI to start an investigation into something he knew to be false.”

            Reporting to the FBI about an anomalous data is not lying. You accusing Sussman of knowing he was lying without any proof at all. You’re flinging accusations out of thin air.

            Making slanderous accusations does not help what you’re supposedly trying to argue.

            You’re much better off with the facts of the case than making stuff up.

      2. You do not go to the FBI to report anomalous data.

        Further you seem to be confining yourself to a tiny part of Alpha bank – where government contractors using government data completely outside of their government duties through Sussman alleged illegal communications between the Trump campaign and Russia.

        You seem to forget that Sussman was involved in the Steele Dossier – which was a manufactured HOAX sold to the FBI.

        The FBI far too willingly bought the HOAX – that is a separate problem, that so far there is little evidence Durham is investigating.

        I have problems with Sussman’s conduct – it is not that he lied to the FBI, but that he got the FBI to investigate a HOAX.

        But I am more concerned about the FBI.

        We see much the same thing in the Whitmer Kidnapping plot.

        The FBI concocted the entire thing. They did not investigate a crime, they manufactured one.
        There are many possible motivations for the FBI to do so – NONE of which are acceptable.

        We saw much the same with post 9/11 witch hunts targeting american muslim teens.

        It does not matter whether the FBI creates crimes to make itself look good, to bolster budgets or reputations, or to punish political enemies.
        ALL of these chocies are WRONG and EVIL.

        They are no less wrong when triggered by private actors.

        1. John B. Say,

          “ You do not go to the FBI to report anomalous data.”

          Yes you do, when it involves a foreign entity and the trump campaign after well known attempts by the Russians to meddle in the election was prudent to go to the FBI with the suspicious data.

          Sussman sought to confirm if the alleged data was indeed illegal communications.

          There’s no way to determine with any amount of certainty what Sussman was eliciting a hoax. The FBI was required to investigate it anyway.

          You’re letting your imagination run away into irrelevant conspiracy theories.

          Reporting the anomalous data to the FBI is not a crime.

    1. John B. Say,

      “ They did not voluntarily go to the FBI and falsely report a crime. Which is what Sussman should be charged with – Knowingly reporting a false crime.“

      Sussman didn’t knowingly report a false crime. All he did was report suspicious activity between the Trump campaign and a Russian bank that is suspected of illicit activities. The FBI conducted an investigation and determined there was no evidence of wrongdoing. The FBI never asked Sussman who he was working for, but Durham claims Sussman lied about not working for the Clinton campaign. It was not material to the concerns Sussman brought to the FBI. The judge overseeing the case will find out at trial next month whether Durham’s assertion that Sussman’s false statement was material in the case.

      “ The fact that Hunter was setting aside money of the Big Guy – is damning – but even if Only Hunter benefited – Joe still betrayed the public trust. You may not trade the powers of office for personal fortune – or for the personal benefit of some others.”

      What exactly did Joe Biden trade for personal fortune?

      Trump’s children did the same and benefitted from their father’s position. Nobody on the right seemed to be concerned because Trump established this is acceptable and set a precedent.

      Are we holding Democrats to a different standard because they are Democrats? This seems to be what is being implied.

      1. Spinning and ignoring most of the facts does not change reality.

        There are 3 distinct matters here.

        The Alpha Bank claim.

        The Russian Cellphone claim an the nonsense that was the Steele Dossier.

        NONE of these were innocent observations of real world suspicious activity.

        The Steele Dossier was manufactured. Those who wrote had no actual evidence to support anything they wrote.
        Had the FBI or SC ever corroborated even a tiny portion – it would have been random chance.
        At the core – just like YOU, democrats, Schiff, Warner, the Media, …. the claim that Trump had any illegal involvement with russia was a HOPE,
        not resting on actual evidence.

        The Russian Cellphone claim was based on a false understanding of reality.

        Both the Cellphone claim and the Alpha Bank claim were made using government data provided to government contractors for specific purposes – that did not include private investigations of political enemies.

        Further what you claim were anomalies – were not, and those involved knew that. Nothing actually unusual was occuring, You could use the same data and find similar results against Citibank, or Bloomberg or wherever you want. The data was not anomalous – it was part of the normal noise of reality.

        I get about a dozen spam phone calls a day – probably atleast one comes from Russia.

        Susman provided to the FBI several different claims that Trump was colluding with Russia.
        Each of these claims was false – and Sussman either knew that or was required to know it before making them.

        Sussman’s lie about how he was funded is not a crime – but it is evidence of his guilt. He KNEW the source of his allegations was highly suspect.

        Todate none of us know exactly what Sussman knew about how corrupt the allegations he forwarded to the FBI were.

        But He KNEW the source of the allegations, he KNEW that was not a trustworthy source – and he lied about the source.

        Again the fact that he lied – should not be a crime. Though YOU thought it was when it was Flynn or Papadoulous, or Zander or some Trump affliate who was in error.

        But that lie is STILL evidence of guilt in the actual crime of false reporting.

        1. John B. Say,

          “ There are 3 distinct matters here.

          The Alpha Bank claim.

          The Russian Cellphone claim an the nonsense that was the Steele Dossier.

          NONE of these were innocent observations of real world suspicious activity.“

          Wow, talk about spinning facts.

          The DNS data Sussman was referring to included suspicious data that showed similarities to data that old Russian cellphones used for spying produced.

          Reporting that to the FBI is not a crime.

          “ Todate none of us know exactly what Sussman knew about how corrupt the allegations he forwarded to the FBI were.”

          There’s no proof of your claim that the allegations were corrupt that’s a pure assumption on your part.

          You have absolutely no proof of your claims.

          “ But that lie is STILL evidence of guilt in the actual crime of false reporting.”

          You’re really trying hard to conflate a criminal act that doesn’t exist by making baseless assumptions.

          “ Again the fact that he lied – should not be a crime. Though YOU thought it was when it was Flynn or Papadoulous, or Zander or some Trump affliate who was in error.”

          Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI. Lying to the FBI is certainly a crime. It’s felony to be exact. Sussman was not under criminal investigation or suspected of wrongdoing when he volunteered the information. The FBI never asked him if he was working for the Clinton campaign as it was irrelevant to the information he was providing. Thus being immaterial to the case. Durham is falling victim to his conspiracies in the rabbit hole he’s created to make this one charge stick.

      2. Let me try this differently.

        Your employer provides you with evidence that a competitor murdered someone.

        You go to he FBI and report that murder, but you lie to the FBI and tell them no one has hired you – therefore YOU are vouching as a concenred citizen for the allegation you are offering.

        After investigation it turns our that there was no murder, and your employer fabricated the evidence.

        Guess what – You are guilty of false reporting.

        1. John B. Say,

          Your example is an extremely poor characterization of what occurred.

          Sussman was not working for the Clinton campaign. The data came from an inquiry that started during the Obama administration. It was not possible to “spy” or “infiltrate” the Trump White House servers as falsely claimed by Trump because he was not in office at the time.

          The tech executive-1 was one of the cybersecurity individuals that provided the data to Sussman who then provided it to the FBI. Reporting that suspicious data is not lying as you erroneously allege.

          The FBI determined there was nothing nefarious about the data. That would be the equivalent of a lack of fabrication according to your example therefore no crime of making a false report.

          No matter how many times you try to frame it the facts don’t support your claims of false reports, hoaxes, or even lying.

      3. What did Joe Trade ?

        Really ?

        Joe has openly admitted – BRAGGED about demanding that Ukraine fire prosecutor Shokin who was investigating the company where Hunter was getting paid over $1M a year as board member for doing nothing.

        Regardless, Svelaz – you have a huge problem.

        NO ONE beleives that Hunter Biden was being paid millions by the chinese, the russians, various oligarchs, and a long list of others – purely to fund his bachanal of drugs parties and
        hookers.

        1. “Shokin who was investigating the company where Hunter was getting paid”

          No. Shokin was *not* investigating Burisma when Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin. That’s why the US and EU wanted Shokin fired: he wasn’t investigating corruption.

          Shokin’s firing made it *more* likely that Burisma would be investigated, not less.

        2. “ Regardless, Svelaz – you have a huge problem”

          Um, most of us have been saying that for quite a while. do not feed the trolls.

        3. John B. Say,

          “Joe has openly admitted – BRAGGED about demanding that Ukraine fire prosecutor Shokin who was investigating the company where Hunter was getting paid over $1M a year as a board member for doing nothing”

          This was an international effort backed by the EU and the Obama White House which were focused on the corruption of the Ukrainian prosecutor. This had nothing to do with Hunter Biden making a million a year as a board member. There’s nothing illegal about being a board member and doing “nothing”. It’s the norm even in this country. Nothing he did was illegal. Even you conceded that early on this thread. All this issue with Hunter Biden is one false allegation after another implying criminality over actions and behavior that Trump himself engaged in with his kids.

          Turley often implies that the influence-peddling he accuses Hunter Biden of engaging in is somehow criminal even though it is legal.

      4. Trump was born with a platinum spoon, as were his children. Absolutely they benefited from their fathers.

        But prior to 2017 Trump excercised no public power, Whatever he did for his children breached no public trust.

        Democrats and the left have gone to great efforts to find evidence that Trump or his family personally benefited from Trump’s presidency – and found nothing.
        Trump lost money – he is worth more now than when he was president.

        There is no evidence that Trump or any family member benefited from Trump’s public service.

        All of Trump’s family is successful PRIVATELY.

        Certainly it is unlikely they would have done so well but for the opportunities Trump provided.
        But none of those oportunities was a breach of a public trust.

        And to repeat – each has been SUCCESSFUL on their own.

        Being a Trump may have gotten their foot in some doors,
        but they are wealthy and successful because they have succeeded once they got through the door.
        And when they got in – they sold themselves, or Trump enterprises. They sold what they could do themselves or through their businesses.

        NOT what the US government could do for them.

        The difference is the difference between normal private business, and criminal breach of public trust.

      5. “Are we holding Democrats to a different standard because they are Democrats? This seems to be what is being implied.”

        I am not implying that – I am stating that flat out.

        Democrats are being held to a much lower standard than anyone else – by YOU.

        At this time the evidence is DAMNING – Sussman lied tot he FBI.

        YOU are the one who claimed lying to the FBI was a crime – any lie, regardless of whether it was material, regardless of whether the investigation was actually ongoing.
        Regardless of whether the error was innocent.
        Regardless of any extenuating factors.

        Todate we have no actual evidence Flynn lied to the FBI – there is no contemporaneous documentation, The FBI 302’s are months later and ambigou so.

        But we have actual statements by those int he FBI susman talked to as well as Sussman’s own texts repeating the lie.

        By YOUR standards, Sussman is a slam dunk.

        But it is even worse. Trump did not collude with Russian – but the Clinton campaign did Collude with the FBI to sell a hoax to the media and the american people.

        There is no doubt of any element of that.

        Yet for years – you, democrats, the press, have told us all that was just a conspiracy theory.

        It was …. a TRUE one.

    2. “[T]here is nothing that is or should be a crime in the conduct of Hunter Biden.”

      I beg to differ.

      “Bribery of Public Officials” is a federal crime. One such case concerns CEFC (the Chinese energy company).

  3. Today’s Turley piece is, of course, another Turley deflection from the BIG corruption story. From Vanity Fair:

    Jared Kushner did a famously bad job as a senior adviser to the president of the United States, so much so that the “Controversies” section on his Wikipedia page should be titled “F-ckups You’ve Probably Heard About.” From the prolonged government shutdown and a Middle East peace plan that involved calling Palestinians “hysterical and stupid,” to the initial dismissal of COVID-19 as not actually being a public health emergency and the scrapping of nationwide testing because the virus was primarily affecting Democratic states, all of young Kush’s hits would be there, and the takeaway would be that on a near daily basis, he screwed up big time.

    As we’ve noted a number of times around these parts, though, the one exception to the “Jared Kushner is bad at this” rule was when it came to the task of cultivating friendships with some of the world’s worst human-rights abusers. Specifically, Kushner was a huge fan of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom he texted via WhatsApp and built a relationship that one congressman told Vanity Fair’s Abigail Tracy “stunned” him, saying, “It looks bad. It smells bad. It is bad.” In addition to seemingly having no problem with the prince’s decision to jail his own family members, or the disastrous Saudi-led intervention in Yemen, Kushner defended MBS amid the murder of Saudi dissident (and U.S. resident) Jamal Khashoggi, and he reportedly urged Donald Trump to support the prince, arguing that the whole situation—wherein a man was kidnapped, killed, and dismembered via bone saw—would blow over. And while that level of a**-kissing and murder-excusing would keep a person with a functioning moral compass up at night, for Kushner it has paid off—literally.

    On Sunday, The New York Times reported that just six months after leaving the White House, the former first son-in-law’s newly formed private equity firm, Affinity Partners, was awarded a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, which is led by MBS. That the kingdom would fork over that kind of cash to Kushner is obviously ridiculously shady and, as Nick Penniman, the founder and chief executive of good-government organization Issue One, told The Times, “swampy and seemingly hypocritical.” But the cash alone is not even the funniest part, and by funniest we mean insanely unethical and wildly corrupt. No, the unethical and corrupt part is that the people who perform due diligence for the Saudis’ Public Investment Fund concluded Kushner’s firm was a joke and that he might make them look bad…and then the board, headed by MBS, gave him the money anyway. Because…y’know.

    Per The Times:

    A panel that screens investments for the main Saudi sovereign wealth fund cited concerns about the proposed deal with Mr. Kushner’s newly formed private equity firm, Affinity Partners, previously undisclosed documents show.

    Those objections included: “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management”; the possibility that the kingdom would be responsible for “the bulk of the investment and risk”; due diligence on the fledgling firm’s operations that found them “unsatisfactory in all aspects”; a proposed asset management fee that “seems excessive”; and “public relations risks” from Mr. Kushner’s prior role as a senior adviser to his father-in-law, former President Donald J. Trump, according to minutes of the panel’s meeting last June 30.

    According to The Times, every member of the panel who was present at the meeting “stated that they [were] not in favor” of investing with Kushner. But it seems a powerful friend intervened on his behalf: (the story continues)

    Yes, Trump, et al, have a definite affinity for murderers, provided they can hand them cash or help them cheat their way into power. And, before you start calling me names again, the above is based on FACTs. Hunter Biden has not been proven to have committed any crimes.

      1. Jury – Do you have the date of Hunter Biden’s canonization? I want to get my dibs in for trinkets.

    1. Obama’s Spring series, including billions of dollars in giveaways, reordered claims, Iraq War 2.0, and catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform (CAIR). Biden’s Maidan/Slavic Spring with “benefits”, billions of dollars in state of the art military housewarming “gifts”, an CAIR.

  4. In the U.S. we think of businesses as private companies but in places like the Ukraine businesses are just a branch of the federal government operated by government approved oligarchs. Consequently dealing with such companies is the same as dealing with the Ukrainian government. The history of the ownership of Burisma will bear me out. From Wikipedia. Burisma Holdings is owned by Brociti Investments Limited, a Cyprus-based company owned by Ukrainian former politician and businessman Mykola Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky was minister of natural resources under Viktor Yanukovych, then president of Ukraine.[34] Brociti Investments acquired Burisma Holdings in 2011.[35] Before that acquisition, Mykola Zlochevsky and Mykola Lisin each owned a 50% interest in Burisma Holdings.[12][35][36] Lisin, a Ukrainian politician, died in a traffic accident in 2011. There is no distinction between Burisma and the government of Ukraine. They are one and the same. This is something that Joe Biden would understand. None the less he sanctioned and profited from his sons relationship with Burisma. The definition to be considered is hubris.

  5. Did the “big guy” file his taxes on his 10% cut with the IRS?

    Perhaps the “big guy’s” proceeds were sent to the the laundry.

  6. If Joe and Jill really cared about Hunter they would have tried to get him professional help. Instead they were enablerers.

    1. Prostitution, pedophilia, drugs, and alcohol… given the orientation of social progress, a forward-looking lifestyle. #NoJudgment #NoLabels

Leave a Reply