Hunter Biden Lock Him Up!!!!!

[Rajoo]

We are back to Russia hoax?

Anything to deflect the biggest crook in politics Trump who as it happens is the preferred candidate of the Goobers.

Perhaps locking up Hunter would have been better for the country and then throw the book at Trump for treason.

[Chicks]

Just when you think Whell can’t possibly go any lower, or get any dumber, he’s back with more BS. He is a troll’s troll. Sad, hateful little man.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

My only point was that Roger Stone was treated better than Hunter Biden when both had $2 million in tax delinquency, notwithstanding Stone's criminal history. You're the one who went off on a tangent whining (falsely) about Stone's mistreatment for his crimes associated with the Congressional Russia investigation.

Oh, bull shite. You were busy claiming that the DOJ wasn't interested in prosecuting tax cheats. Now you're gladly yapping about examples of how your own statement isn't true, including with the Stone example.

As far as Roger Stone being treated "better", their cases are quite different and I don't think there's a basis for comparison.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, bull shite. You were busy claiming that the DOJ wasn't interested in prosecuting tax cheats. Now you're gladly yapping about examples of how your own statement isn't true, including with the Stone example.

As far as Roger Stone being treated "better", their cases are quite different and I don't think there's a basis for comparison.

I didn't say that. What I was trying to get at (and you still fail to understand) is that tax crimes are generally discovered by IRS who refers them to DOJ. DOJ doesn't start out with a blank slate and flip through peoples' tax returns looking for tax crimes to prosecute. Same goes for environmental crimes (referred by EPA) or manslaughter cases resulting from unsafe working conditions (referred by DOL). As for Roger Stone's tax case, it had absolutely nothing to do with Crossfire Hurricane nor his relationship with a State Dept source as you asserted.

Meanwhile, the GOP is deadset on significantly reducing tax enforcement by the IRS and, coincidentally, pushed a case to the Supreme Court that formed the basis for a federal court decision in Oklahoma that deemed the provision of federal law prohibiting gun ownership by drug users unconstitutional.

So, interestingly, the two crimes that Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to are crimes that the GOP generally does not want enforced (unless the miscreant is Hunter Biden).

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I didn't say that.

Sure you did, of course citing your "considerable experience".

Originally Posted by finnbow

You obviously don't understand the dynamic between regulatory agencies and DOJ. IRS cares about tax compliance and revenue whereas DOJ cares about (major) crime. Failing to file tax returns is a misdemeanor and Hunter paid his tax debts when his liabilities were exposed rather than fighting and lying about it (like Trump did).

I went ahead and posted case history that the IRS has pursued similar cases with lesser amounts owed as felonies. Now, you're saying you never said it.

Whatever, dude.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Sure you did, of course citing your "considerable experience".

Nope. My response was to your breathless credulity of the IRS "whistleblower" (after all the other Comer/Jordan "whistleblowers" proved to be malcontents with pending personnel actions against them). I said "In my experience (which is considerable in this arena from the numerous cases I've been involved with for DOD, DOL and DOE), agency staff who discover wrongdoing are always more fired up than DOJ/FBI investigators who get their referrals (in the few instances that actually get beyond the agency's counsel) and therefore often disgruntled when they feel their complaints are not being weighed seriously enough. Such conversations/disagreements are commonplace, even routine."

And my assertion remains true, whether you like it or not. People from other agencies who refer cases to DOJ for possible prosecution are often disappointed when DOJ doesn't prosecute as fully as they think is warranted (or even at all). I've been in this position several times myself as one who referred (or consulted upon) cases from DOD, DOL and DOE. The difference was that I didn't label myself a whistleblower and run to some pathetic, discredited morons on the Hill (e.g., Comer, Jordan) because the cases didn't cross the DOJ threshold for action (i.e., a slam-dunk felony). I think a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted to allegations made by anyone who takes Comer or Jordan seriously.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Nope. My response was to your breathless credulity of the IRS "whistleblower" ...[/I]

As compared to your reflexive dismissiveness of the whistleblower's complaints.

Originally Posted by finnbow

And my assertion remains true, whether you like it or not. People from other agencies who refer cases to DOJ for possible prosecution are often disappointed when DOJ doesn't prosecute as fully as they think is warranted (or even at all). I've been in this position several times myself as one who referred (or consulted upon) cases from DOD, DOL and DOE. The difference was that I didn't label myself a whistleblower and run to some pathetic, discredited morons on the Hill (e.g., Comer, Jordan) because the cases didn't cross the DOJ threshold for action (i.e., a slam-dunk felony). I think a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted to allegations made by anyone who takes Comer or Jordan seriously.

I actually agree with your assertion, but your assertion is just a deflection from the central point: there appears to be a disparity of treatment of certain types of cases within the Justice Dept and FBI.

It is good that you didn't label yourself a whistleblower. That would be a disservice to Ms Shapley, who has more credibility at this point than you do. While you're out there trying to discredit the guy by calling him a "malcontent with pending personnel actions" against him (where's your proof of that as it relates to Shapley, by the way?), the NY Times, in a random act of journalism, independently confirmed a key element of Shapley's testimony - that Weiss was getting pushback from within the DOJ:

"But in mid-2022, Mr. Weiss reached out to the top federal prosecutor in Washington, Matthew Graves, to ask his office to pursue charges and was rebuffed, according to Mr. Shapley’s testimony," The Times wrote Tuesday. "A similar request to prosecutors in the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, was also rejected, Mr. Shapley testified. A second former I.R.S. official, who has not been identified, told House Republicans the same story. That episode was confirmed independently to The New York Times by a person with knowledge of the situation."

So, on one hand, you have Merritt Garland stating that Weiss has no restrictions in pursuing his investigation. On the other hand, you have the story of two whistleblowers, elements of which have been corroborated by the NY Times, who claims Weiss told them (and others who were involved in the same discussion) he didn't have the final word in the pursuit of his investigation.

Somebody is not telling the truth. If Shapley and others are lying, then they'll deserve whatever legal punishment is due to them for making a false claim. If Garland is lying - and now there's evidence that at least contradicts his claims of giving Weiss free rein - then Garland needs to go.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

While you're out there trying to discredit the guy by calling him a "malcontent with pending personnel actions" against him...

Yet another lie from you to try to salvage a losing argument. I said that the "other Comer/Jordan's whistleblowers" were malcontents with pending personnel actions (absolutely true). I said no such thing about the IRS guy. I said skepticism is warranted for two reasons - first agency investigators are always pissed when DOJ doesn't pursue a case in the manner they wish it would be pursued (something I have personally experienced several times).

The second was that, given Comer and Jordan's dubious history with "whistleblowers" and their demonstrated dishonesty, incompetence and Trump subservience, anyone who goes to them as a "whistleblower" deserves a heaping helping of skepticism for their own likely MAGA leanings. Who, besides a MAGAMoron with an ax to grind, would take Comer/Jordan seriously?

[Chicks]

'This guy is not a whistleblower': Expert blasts GOP's source in Hunter Biden investigation as 'complainer'
https://www.rawstory.com/amp/hunter-...661-2661990661

Nothing but your typical Whell’s World Whiner.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yet another lie from you to try to salvage a losing argument. I said that the "other Comer/Jordan's whistleblowers" were malcontents with pending personnel actions (absolutely true). I said no such thing about the IRS guy. I said skepticism is warranted for two reasons - first agency investigators are always pissed when DOJ doesn't pursue a case in the manner they wish it would be pursued (something I have personally experienced several times).

Pardon me, but you said:

Originally Posted by finnbow

Nope. My response was to your breathless credulity of the IRS "whistleblower" (after all the other Comer/Jordan "whistleblowers" proved to be malcontents with pending personnel actions against them).

We were talking about Shapley, and you elected to make the comparison to the "other" whistleblowers. But, if you want to claim you weren't making the comparison to Shapley, fine. I'm sure, however, that you saw my request to post your evidence about the "pending personnel actions". I find it interesting that you'd know about these since pending personnel actions are typically confidential matters. Maybe you could post some examples.

Originally Posted by finnbow

The second was that, given Comer and Jordan's dubious history with "whistleblowers" and their demonstrated dishonesty, incompetence and Trump subservience, anyone who goes to them as a "whistleblower" deserves a heaping helping of skepticism for their own likely MAGA leanings. Who, besides a MAGAMoron with an ax to grind, would take Comer/Jordan seriously?

As far as "demonstrated dishonestly", someone who utters something you or others on this forum disagree with is labeled a liar.

I stand by my remark earlier, which you seem to want to avoid, that at this point Shapley has more credibility than you and yours, given that elements of this testimony have been independently confirmed.