scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

What you need to do is look at all the things you mention with unbiased eyes. Read about everything and you will see the difference between how Hunter was treated as opposed to you or I. It really is one law for the elites and one for us peons.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

I don't think there is anything biased in my recounting the actual history of right wing investigations. I note that you do not take issue with any of the history as I have recounted it. That history would lead any fair-minded person to be skeptical of this sort of thing.

You said I should "read everything" but I suspect that what you mean is that I should read everything that you believe whether or not it crosses any credibility threshold. Neither of us have "read everything. You do not have direct access to all the evidence ad neither do I. You were not party the negotiations that led to the plea deal and neither was I. Also, you have chosen to ignore what the Trump-appointed prosecutor and to say in favor of the Fever Swamp of right wing media. Asking me to be unbiased us a pretty big ask coming from you.

The obsession with Hunter Biden is an example of not knowing the difference between what you believe and what you know. Fir example, I believe that Donald Trump is a criminal. But I do not know that. If there is a conviction of on any of the charges, then that belief will become knowledge. If he is acquitted on all counts, then that belief will remain only a belief. See the difference?

Here is what we both now abut the Hunter affair: there was an investigation led by a Trump-appointed prosecuter and a plea deal was reached. You don't like the deal and I have no opinion. All the rest is speculation, opinion and belief being presented as unassailable fact.

This is a breakdown of critical thinking snd more than an amplification of what you already believe.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Triple G

They're still a long way from leveling additional charges. The tax and gun things are a done deal, I suspect, with the plea deal. Any future investigations should be ongoing.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/leads-congress-can-follow-after-whistleblower-testimony

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

Not a done deal (although may be academic) until the judge accepts the plea deal and he is sentenced.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

I understand that the prosecutor says the investigation is ongoing and the defense counsel says the matter is closed.

I think there may be further investigations not involving taxes or guns.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

We are talking about an oversight hearing not a court of law. The purpose being to provide oversight on the various branches of government. Technically no one is on trial but each committee member has a chance to examine the witnesses so when the party opposing the hearing because their guy or institutions are under the microscope have the microphone and they choose to ask questions germane to the proceedings rather than an attempt to politically grandstand that can be/is cross examination. As to the witnesses, they are both career federal agents under oath. I am not an attorney but you and I both know their (unimpeached) testimony does not require corroboration. It would be up to the trier of fact to determine credibility or what weight to lend to the testimony.

Excuse my ambiguity but I thought you would know I was referring to the statutes of limitation. I guess I have always, as many in the media, shortcut the phrase as I assumed the term was more broadly used and understood. I do understand vagueness and ambiguity would be objectionable in a court of law.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

Believe what you are trying to say is that fact witnesses need not be subject to any scrutiny at all, as you appear to be presenting the testimony of one side as the ultimate truth. I disagree with this tyoe f thinking regardless of in an oversight hearing or a court of law.

The weakest form of evidence is the uncorroborated word of anyone, whether under oath or not. By your standards, there is no point of putting Congressional witnesses under oath at all. After all, they said it so it must be true.

Do you believe whole hog any witnesses on the other side? I don't.

btbg

Of course they are a long ways from leveling additional charges
Both California and the District of Columbia refused to prosecute the 2014 and 2015 charges that the statute of limitations has run out on.

There is plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by Hinter the DOJ and the FBI and possibly Weiss. If you just look at the known facts it is obvious that Hunter has broken dozens of laws and that he was hired purely for influence peddling. There is also plenty of evidence that both the FVI and DOJ have stonewalled investigations but that they encouraged social media companies to suppress factual reporting about the case during the time leading up to the 2020 election.

The outrage from the right is because of the difference between how that was handled versus other high profile cases.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

I am not stating my standards just what procedurally happened in this hearing and although uncorroborated testimony may not be as strong as corroborated evidence it is none the less evidence. I said the opportunity to scrutinize the witness is there. It is just that some chose to rant about the true two tiered justice is the over incarceration of African Americans rather than question the witnesses.
I did not get to see the documents obviously but the two agents referred to and submitted documents to further corroborate their testimony. Ziegler also testified that Hunter’s attorney was tipped off regarding a search warrant of a storage facility that contained records of transactions allowing removal/destruction of the same. Obviously short of obtaining the records we can’t know the import and consequences, if any, of their content.

Triple G

They're available as is the Grassley document. Next up to hear other side, it's necessary to have testimony from Weiss.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-irs-whistleblowers-expose-how-bidens-were-treated-differently%EF%BF%BC/

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

More input

https://news.yahoo.com/fmr-guiliani-associate-lev-parnas-174327887.html

scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

Lets start out with you do a lot of assuming in your reply. Your first sentence with "3 misdemeanors". Seriously? A felon with a gun who commits tax evasion and no jail time? The rest of your reply is the same. When I asked that you look with unbiased eyes I knew I was asking the impossible. You liberals will go to the grave defending that senile loser you put into office no matter what he does.