Bank Investigator Raised Concerns About Money from China that Ultimately Funded $40,000 Payment to..

He paid it back awhile ago. Who’s the victim?

 

@Bluesguy is in "everyone I don't like has to give me an audit of every dollar they make, and people I do like can just be given a free pass" mode.

 

This is true, Joe Biden would not necciasrily need to received money himself in order for a transaction to be considered bribery. However, there would need to be proof of a quid pro quo involving his public position of some sort in order for it to be considered bribery.

This idea that because Joe Biden received payment from his brother/sister in-law as part of a supposed repayment of a previous loan definitely would not consitute as evidence of a quid pro quo in of itself. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any drawn conclusions from the investigation itself that there was not a previous loan from Joe's brother/sister in-law.. but if I am wrong about that, then perhaps you could refer me to the part of the investigation that states that?

If he was only receiving payment without previously lending them money, and he did not report the transaction in his taxes, then Joe Biden would be guilty of tax evasion right then and there.

 

Merely leaning one way or another would suffice but it's real simplw where is the proof it was for a legitimate business product or service. Show me the invoices.

 

On and in what he Biden's? Show me the billing records.

 

Restitution is only part of the legal sanctions and the least one.

 

None of your business, like the presidents tax returns

 

Lol.

They will never admit it. They will never condemn it. In fact, they really don't care. They are driven by ideological extremism and partisan politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

That's not how the law works, one doesn't prove innocence. Perhaps if subjects were guilty until proven innocent, your argument would be logical, but in our reality that is not how any investigation of a crime is conducted. The way it works is if there is reasonable suspicion, an investigation may be conducted, if the investigation cannot provide evidence of a crime, then the default ruling is that there was no crime (innocent until proven guilty). Furthermore, if the investigators have a hypothesis, it is up to them to provide the evidence to support that hypothesis.

While the absence of invoices may raise suspicion, and may even lead to further audits and investigations, it is not sufficient evidence in of itself of money laundering, not to mention evidence of quid pro quo from the subject's father.

 

People prove their innocence before court and during court everyday else they would not present defenses...........stop with that baseless canard.

What have the Biden's offered US, the PEOPLE, the CITIZENS of this country which elected him to the highest office in the land to show that their business dealings and the tens of millions they received from some of our worst foreign adversaries was all above board. You seem to have no problem forcing Trump to prove his innocence why are the Biden's above the law?

 

In the court of law, all defenses are made as rebuttal of the evidence brought forward by the prosecution, however this does not mean the burden of proof falls on the defense. That's because the default ruling is always innocent unless proven otherwise, and as such the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and not the defense. It is the prosecution that is always required to present evidence, but the defense doesn't necessarily have to present evidence, and when they do present evidence, it is only to rebut the prosecution's evidence. If neither the prosecution or the defense have any evidence to present, then the default ruling is innocent. That should be obvious enough.. or at least obvious to most people


"The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

Great idea. All presidential candidates should be required to release all their bank statements. Would you support that?

 

Neither do you. You can’t point to any specific illegal activity.

 

What is this sentence supposed to mean?

Show me the basis for a subpoena. And why are you suddenly so in love with what you used to call "fishing expeditions"?

 

Your comments here are a fascinating departure from your prior comments

 

Trump never had to account for where all of his money was coming from. Neither has Kushner . . . who received millions to do something that he had NO experience in AFTER the leader of that country bragged about having Kushner in his "back pocket."

 

I'm UK, yes

 

So you are admitting the bribery and influence peddling by the Biden's and think you get them off by asserting Trump and Kushner sold influence?

 

I've seen more evidence of bribery when it comes to Trump and Kushner. You've shown none for the Bidens. Try reading back through that again.

 

So you are admitting the Biden's were engaged in bribery and influence peddling and your allegations about Trump gets them off?

And for you to compare the Dems wanting Trumps tax returns JUST so they could release them to the public to this is laughably desperate on your part especially since the Rep's haven't even asked for Biden's.

 

Then take it to those threads and post the evidence of it.

Why do you believe it gets the Biden's off the hook. And you have seen PLENTY of evidence of the bribery and influence peddling as I have posted a ton and you have refuted none.

Try reading the latest WSJ for some new evidence

Joe Biden’s Assist to Hunter’s Business
New emails suggest what Burisma really wanted from the Bidens.

...Ways and Means also received new emails from Mr. Ziegler that are revealing about what Burisma wanted from Hunter. One email is from Vadym Pozharsky, an adviser to Burisma, to Hunter in April 2015. The Ukrainian thanked Hunter for “the opportunity to meet your father and spent (sp) some time together.”

Another Pozharsky email to Hunter (which copies Mr. Schwerin) in November 2015 asks Hunter for thoughts on a proposal for a contract for a U.S. lobbying firm, Blue Star Strategies. Mr. Pozharsky worries about the lack of “concrete, tangible results” listed in the proposal, including how the firm will improve Mr. Zlochevky’s “case.”

Mr. Pozharsky says it’s okay if the omission was to be on “the safe and cautious side,” so long as “all parties in fact understand the true purpose” of the contract. He then spells that out, saying the Blue Star work needs to include arranging a visit of “widely recognized and influential current and/or former US policy-makers to Ukraine . . . to close down for any cases/pursuits against [Zlochevsky] in Ukraine.”

An October 2016 email between a Blue Star employee and Mr. Schwerin includes the news that the Ukrainian government had ended its probe into Mr. Zlochevsky (about eight months after the Ukrainian prosecutor was fired). Mr. Schwerin congratulates the team on its “awesome work.” The Blue Star employee writes: “Thanks. U brought us in so take a victory lap.”

All of this suggests Joe Biden was fully aware that Hunter was selling the family “brand,” and that the Vice President was helping with the sale. It also raises new questions about the connection between Hunter’s job at Burisma and Joe’s work getting the Ukrainian prosecutor of Mr. Zlochevsky fired. None of it looks good.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023...tent=featured-content-trending&utm_term=third

Just one more to throw on the pile of evidence.

 

You keep saying you have a pile of evidence . . . but you've provided none. Care to try again?

 

Biden already published his tax returns prior to the general election. Why would they need to ask for them ?

So you're admitting the Trumps were engaged in bribery and influence peddling and your unsupported allegations about the Bidens gets them off ?

 

Sorry I'll try again

On what? As the new bank investigators report showed the LLC's had no investments or projects and Hunter was not qualified to consult on anything and the people paying them were quite clear they thought him a total idiot drug and sex addict.

The IRS whistleblower along with the mounting evidence the committee has turned up gives FULL basis and why they were issued.

 

Lack or rebuttal noted again.

Then you should have no problem refuting the records and explaining exactly what was the business and why the money was going straight into family personal bank accounts.