The Biden Crime Family (a.k.a. "Biden is an honest guy"

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I know you do. I'm asking if you have anything beyond your (and ProPublica's) speculation that supports your belief. So far, you've provided nothing.

You're willing to believe that there's "evidence of bribery" in Thomas's case. I'm willing to believe that ethical lines were crossed, but I don't see evidence of bribery. What's the difference then, assuming that your "evidence of bribery" continues to be something that can't be produced?

You blame me and tell me I'm all MAGA and shit because I don't see the same "evidence of bribery" that you do, even though you can't provide examples of this evidence.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe this issue isn't me?

So, accepting multi-millions over two decades in exchange for consistent conservative votes on the SCOTUS doesn't strike you as corrupt? Figures.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by whell

Apples and oranges, Rickster. I've already stated herein that, while there may not be a "smoking gun" regarding the Biden family, there is actually hard evidence that has surfaced. Specific to the article referenced above, in that case, we have an individual stating for the record "Yes, I wrote a check for $10K. Here's the canceled check. Yes, I gave it to the (then) Senator's brother. Yes, I expected that check would potentially influence a vote. Yes, Biden did end up voting in a manner consistent with my expectations."

I'll make it even briefer. Do you or anyone else have any actual evidence? Testimony under oath will do in a pinch. Hearsay doesn't cut it. Biden "ending up" voting in a manner consistent with someone's expectations means jack unless it can be demonstrated he was intending to vote otherwise before that. Look, I understand that you'll defend your thread come hell or high water but your bias is showing.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

I'll make it even briefer. Do you or anyone else have any actual evidence? Testimony under oath will do in a pinch. Hearsay doesn't cut it. Biden "ending up" voting in a manner consistent with someone's expectations means jack unless it can be demonstrated he was intending to vote otherwise before that. Look, I understand that you'll defend your thread come hell or high water but your bias is showing.

Its a Comer scoop of the year, about the 100th one if you are counting.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

That's what you have for Biden family corruption?
A cancelled check for $10K and an unidentified person's statement for the record, which can be recanted.

Surprised you are not clamoring to have the Biden brothers arrested.
Talk about pissing in the wind, drink lots of water. At this rate you will need it.

One example of many that have been well documented, though some of that documentation is less than honest, or flat-out lazy reporting. You actually have to think through what you're reading about Biden, Thomas, or anyone else because taking an article from the MSM at face value is not always the best idea.

Here's just one example, regarding single element of a "fact-check" of some of Comer and company's allegations about the Biden family's finances. This is ironic because the author of the fact check called the Committee's claims "misleading", but I'm wondering if the author is herself being misleading, or she's journalistically lazy.

In a floor speech on Dec. 13 in support of the resolution for a formal impeachment inquiry, Comer said, “One bank investigator was so concerned about Hunter Biden’s financial transactions with the Chinese company that he wanted to re-evaluate the bank’s relationship with him. He noted that his transactions served ‘no current business purpose.'”

That’s true, but it’s not the whole story.

On Nov. 29, the House oversight committee released a June 26, 2018, email from a bank money laundering investigator who raised concerns about bank transactions involving Hunter Biden.

“We have been monitoring the subject customer due to the PEP designation and observations on the account activity as well as recent negative news indicate this entity to be high risk,” the investigator wrote in the email.

PEP is an acronym for “Politically Exposed Person,” which LexisNexis Risk Solutions defines as “someone who, through their prominent position or influence, is more susceptible to being involved in bribery or corruption.”

This jumped out at me because I found it odd that someone would use LexisNexis Risk Solutions as the source for the meaning of the terminology used by the banking industry. I'm quite familiar with LexisNexis: they're in the data analytics business.

So, I decided to Google “Politically Exposed Person" for myself. Perhaps not coincidentally, the first result Google returned was...you guessed it...a link to LexisNexis definition of a “Politically Exposed Person". Here's a hint that the author was lazy because two results down was a link to a definition from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (a.k.a. bank examiners).

This link reveals that the term lacks a specifically documented definition, so context is important when using the term. According to info in the link:

Bank-identified PEP customers present varying levels of ML (money laundering) /TF (terrorist financing) and other illicit financial activity risks, and the potential risk to a bank depends on the presence or absence of numerous factors.

The bank would use this term in quite a far less benign way than the LexisNexis definition would suggest. So, the author goes on to provide context, but summarizes with this:

Comer also didn’t share another email sent later that day from an anti-money-laundering compliance officer who said he or she had spoken with the bank’s anti-money-laundering senior investigator, who relayed that, “based on her opinion and experience with larger banks, she thinks the activity is reasonable and consistent with the business profile,” and that she “does not see any sign of bribery” as the business activity is “clearly written in operating agreements.” The senior investigator, the email said, had noted that “The political connection makes sense as it involves the energy industry/sector, which is not easy to get into. Nothing unusual with lobby type of activity.”

“Based on her assessment the activity does not appear unusual,” the compliance officer wrote, recommending that the bank “waive and continue monitoring under PEP process.”

OK, that make things sound a little less suspect. Except for a couple of small details.

1) The "email sent later that day from an anti-money-laundering compliance officer" was part of a photo of an email chain provided by Dems on the committee.

2) If you look at the documentation the House committee provided - the June 26, 2018 email - and compare that to the rebutting evidence provided by the Dems, they don't quote match up. The email sent later that day from an anti-money-laundering compliance officer" is dated almost a year later: May of 2019.

So what? So, does it seem plausible to you that a bank would slow-walk a concern about an account held by the former VP Biden's son? Where allegations of money laundering are involved.

If you look at the concerns raised in June 2018 and the comments in the May 2019 email provided by the Dems, I'm not even sure the two are related in any way. But, the author decides that this is sufficient to state in a "fact check" that the House committee's claims are "misleading".

You can draw your own conclusions.

[whell]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

I'll make it even briefer. Do you or anyone else have any actual evidence? Testimony under oath will do in a pinch..

Two IRS employees and Hunter Biden's former business partners testified under oath, or were deposed. Would that suffice?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Two IRS employees and Hunter Biden's former business partners testified under oath, or were deposed. Would that suffice?

Witness in House GOP impeachment inquiry says no evidence Joe Biden involved in family business dealings

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n/71973729007/

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by whell

Two IRS employees and Hunter Biden's former business partners testified under oath, or were deposed. Would that suffice?

What was it they testified to, that Joe Biden accepted bribes? Merry Christmas whell and try and do better.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by whell

Two IRS employees and Hunter Biden's former business partners testified under oath, or were deposed. Would that suffice?

Well, there is this...https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n/71973729007/

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

You can draw your own conclusions.

The only conclusion to draw from this twisted diatribe is that your mind is as illogical as that of a conspiracy theorist. You no doubt fully believe the Pizzagate nonsense, as well.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, accepting multi-millions over two decades in exchange for consistent conservative votes on the SCOTUS doesn't strike you as corrupt? Figures.

That's not what I asked you, is it? I asked you for evidence that Thomas accepted bribes. In an earlier post, you stated that evidence was plentiful. Yes, when asked to point to that evidence, you can't.

Figures.