House Republicans BRING THE RECEIPTS To Prove Hunter Biden's Tax Crimes

Originally posted by: Charles Higgins

Nope..not in today's environment ( pertaining to slavery and women's voting rights). Are you kidding? What % of the population endorses those things?

 

The Civil Rights Act was simply a huge step forward for this country...albeit just a starting point.

 

I don't know what proportion of currently elected R's truly believe in civil rights ( or what % espouse it publicly until they get to the bar with their buddies). I don't know what proportion of R's among the citizenry support them, either. All I know is those that continue to oppress people/ethnicities by their actions ( and/or words, etc) are just wrong.

 

You've relied on that " conservatives are hindered by fear of change" for too long. In actuality, that argument reverts to the real issue that involves the pluses and minuses of change..the consequences of some changes outweigh the costs and real captured benefits for the general public. It's true..I'm not a proponent of willy - nilly change; I don't always get my way, though...no matter whom I vote for. Your physiological brain chemistry comment is weird and unsubstantiated. Where are the peer-reviewed medical journal articles that support your claim? I mean..who collected the blood samples, did the assays, and reported the results?

 

And please..what the hell is white supremacy? That buzz word / phrase is tossed around by the media and many leftists as if it represents an etiology for a forthcoming monstrous and widespread plague of some kind. How widespread are its members and their influences?  Is it all founded on the ideology that whites are a superior race and should dominate society? Hitler in action, so to speak? What proportion of this country's population falls into this category ( and the thirty or so subsets of it?). I can't find an answer to that question..how many are there? Biden called it " the greatest terrorist threat in our homeland"; show me the numbers, then. I'll just say that any hate faction that commits crimes or spreads propaganda against alternate ethnicities should pay the consequences via the law. I don't believe the incidence of these supremacists and their actions are anywhere near what they're purported to be..I'd like to see the true numbers, though ; I don't know what those numbers are. I'd wager that the number of Black Americans killed in Chicago by other Black Americans last year far outnumbered those that were killed by white supremacists and their assorted subsets in the same community. Next, we can argue about the influences of poverty on assorted hate crimes and crime in general..whom is doing what to whom?


Anyone who votes in favor of legislation that restricts civil rights doesn't believe in civil rights. Easy peasy. Unfortunately, that includes virtually the entire elected RepubliQ, at every level. I admire those few Republican rebels who vote with their conscience and against the red-meat chorus--and boy, look what happens to them when they do! They're treated as apostates.

 

My "unsubstantiated" comment re brain chemistry is based on several peer-reviewed studies I've read. Here you go:

 

Kanai, Fieldeh, Firth, and Rees (Apr 2011) "Political Orientations are Correlated With Brain Structure in Young Adults" Current Biology

 

also Scientific American "Conservative and Liberal Brains Might Have Some Real Differences" 10/26/20, L. Denworth

 

Salon 6/6/16: "Study: Liberals and Conservatives Have Different Brain Structures" A. Rosenmann

 

That's just to get you started. I have a list of 14 studies on the topic, all of which reached similar conclusions, if you're truly interested.

 

You appear to know exactly what white supremacy is, so to answer your question, we only know about those individuals who unabashedly join the various organizations and/or publicly express their views. And for every one such person, I'll wager there are twenty who don't spew or hold forth unless and until they have a few beers in them, like Uncle Ferd every Thanksgiving--but their anti-black/brown views are as ardently held as those of the Grand Kleagle (or whatever he's called).

 

I would also argue that those who aren't outraged at the RepubliQ antidemocracy efforts are closet white supremacists. Deep down, they approve of the fact that it's harder for black people to vote and for their votes to count, and they'll happily vote again for the people who brought that about. Will they admit that to friends and relatives? Not in the absence of beer.

 

 

 

Originally posted by: Mark

I don't find the whistleblower, Gary Shapley,  credible.  The "whistleblower" isn't an attorney, he doesn't know the relevant law including case law and what type of evidence is required to have a provable case in court.  For example, a chain of custody has to be established in order to make evidence admissible.  Anything that was discovered on that cloned laptop data would be inadmissible because a chain of custody cannot be established. The people that obtained the data did so by committing felonies themselves and then passed it around to several conservative political operatives before it ever made its way to the FBI. In order for it to be admissible the FBI would have to obtain the untouched laptop through some legal means such as a subpoena.  

 

 

Weiss sent a letter to Gym Jordan outlining that he had sole authority to handle the case however he thought best. Garland has said Weiss will be available to give testimony to the House.  Gym can ask all his questions he wants but the bottom line is there wasn't any admissible evidence to prove Hunter committed any other crimes. As much as conservatives want to boo hoo, it is case closed at this point.  On the upside for conservatives, I have my doubts Hunter can stay clean for two years which would make that gun charge come back. 

 

 

As I have stated before, most tax cases against high-resource individuals get settled for pennies on the dollar without admission of any criminal wrongdoing. The prosecutor took the deal because he knew it was the best he was going to get and would have likely ended up with less if it went to trial. In this case, he got an admission of criminal liability plus the IRS got all the back taxes plus interest and penalties. The idea that they would bring felony charges against a first-time offender that paid their back taxes in full is ludicrous. 

 

 


Mark..What are your reasons for finding lack of credibility in whistleblower ( #1 ) ?. There were actually two whistleblowers, the second of which claimed in his testimony that " I am as middle of the road as they come but consider myself a Democrat". The latter is really a moot point but , FWIW, some libs in here might consider that as having as much or more importance than the veracity and substance of his statements. Both these whistleblowers have an outstanding performance record with several " outstanding" ratings to their credit.

Originally posted by: Charles Higgins

Mark..What are your reasons for finding lack of credibility in whistleblower ( #1 ) ?. There were actually two whistleblowers, the second of which claimed in his testimony that " I am as middle of the road as they come but consider myself a Democrat". The latter is really a moot point but , FWIW, some libs in here might consider that as having as much or more importance than the veracity and substance of his statements. Both these whistleblowers have an outstanding performance record with several " outstanding" ratings to their credit.


What are YOUR reasons for finding him credible? Because he claimed something that aligns with your preconceived notions?

 

Talk is cheap.

Because of the risk they assumed by coming forward.  I can't prove or possibly know how accurate their claims are; by the same token, you can't possibly know that their statements are false / fabricated. Their lives don't gain much by presenting themselves in this scenario; generally, they sacrificed quite a bit. You think they're chasing a book deal or a cable news deal, or what? You likely haven't read the IRS transcripts of their statements, either. Until you do, don't over / under judge them.

Edited on Jun 26, 2023 4:34am

Charles, again, unless they are attorneys, they don't know what type of evidence is admissible. The prosecutor in the case did and that is why he chose to ignor the claims that he knew were unprovable in court because of a lack of evidence.

 

It is interesting because most conservatives think Trump has been treated unfairly in the documents case but the truth is he has been treated with kid gloves compared to other people that broke the same laws.  Most of these folks don't get bail and go straight to jail to await trial because they are considered a national security risk. (they might share what was in the documents with other people) Trump doesn't have so much as an ankle bracelet at this point and he in fact shared the documents with other people. If you read the recent reporting, the DOJ wasn't going to go after Trump at all on the documents case and was just going to give him a free pass for his crimes until they received the recording of Trump sharing the documents.

 

 

Edited on Jun 26, 2023 5:32am

The GOP House spent 4 years cheering for  Trump whilst he  stalled his illegal withholding of his tax records .   So I agree the Federal government has a history of yielding special treatment of tax enforcement.    And I submit they look like a bunch of fools trying to posture themselves as vicitims of a government that favors liberals.

But who cares.

 

I havent seen Joe cock block anything with the investigation of his son's taxes.   Thats a nice change from his predecessor dont ya think?   And his son was convicted.   So I dont know what bias they are talking about.

 

But let the Bengazhi sleuths have their show.  Thats pretty much all they are running on in 2024:  Hunter Biden, Woke people, and the unfair treatment of Jan 6 terrorists.

 

 

I havent seen Joe cock block anything with the investigation of his son's taxes.

 

No need to. His employee prosecuted the case.  Weiss couldn't do anything without garland's ok.  Most of the accusations against hunter were never investigated

Originally posted by: tom

I havent seen Joe cock block anything with the investigation of his son's taxes.

 

No need to. His employee prosecuted the case.  Weiss couldn't do anything without garland's ok.  Most of the accusations against hunter were never investigated


Weiss sent a letter to Jim Jordan stating otherwise. Nex time come up with some evidence before you make an unfounded claim.

 

 

 

The 2 whistleblowers who like Charles has said have nothing to gain by lying say otherwise.  I should be investigated

Originally posted by: tom

I havent seen Joe cock block anything with the investigation of his son's taxes.

 

No need to. His employee prosecuted the case.  Weiss couldn't do anything without garland's ok.  Most of the accusations against hunter were never investigated


The one appointed by Trump?    Yeah - I'm really going to miss your special breed of bullshit, Tom.    

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now