Mar-a-Largo being raided...

[Raoul_Luke]

WTF is right. Show any evidence of any kind of transfer of funds to Joe from Hunter. An email suggesting that they include Joe in the incorporation, but then not doing it is evidence of nothing at all.

The articles of incorporation would show the percentage of ownership. The email was between Hunter and his partners. It was not sent to Joe...oh, and by the way, Joe was not VP when that email or incorporation took place.

What evidence do you have of Joe Biden doing anything for any of Hunter's business partners?

LOL! That was a boat load of rubbish.

Hunter held his father's share. Period. End of story.

It's not going to show on the books...anywhere. Again, you should stick to coding because you don't know jack sh*t about accounting & finance.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Trump illegally withheld appropriated aid (which impacted Ukraine’s readiness to defend against Russia’s coming invasion) to induce the president to launch a bogus investigation.

Meanwhile, there is no indication that Biden had any input in the FBI’s decision to seek a search warrant after months of methodical investigation of an evident career criminal.

Remember how the FBI ostentatiously intervened, in violation of policy, to get Trump elected? And that was before the DOJ was staffed with Trump’s picks.

Um, no.

 

[EatTheRich]

Um, no.

Literally the pretext the Trump White House came up with for firing Comey was that he was too biased against Hillary Clinton and violated DOJ policy in his personal crusade to keep her from being elected.

 

[middleview]

LOL! That was a boat load of rubbish.

Hunter held his father's share. Period. End of story.

It's not going to show on the books...anywhere. Again, you should stick to coding because you don't know jack sh*t about accounting & finance.

Bullshit. Each of the principals was down for 20%..joe was not on the articles of incorporation.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Bullshit. Each of the principals was down for 20%..joe was not on the articles of incorporation.

What part of "H to hold 10% for 'big guy'" is so hard for you to understand? Your attempts at gaslighting here are getting out of hand. Clearly Joe being on the articles of incorporation was not part of the scheme - keeping him off by titling his share in Hunter's name was. Period. End of story. Stop making a complete fool of yourself here.

 

[middleview]

What part of "H to hold 10% for 'big guy'" is so hard for you to understand? Your attempts at gaslighting here are getting out of hand. Clearly Joe being on the articles of incorporation was not part of the scheme - keeping him off by titling his share in Hunter's name was. Period. End of story. Stop making a complete fool of yourself here.

Got any evidence of any money going to Joe? Nope...ya don't.

 

[middleview]

What part of "H to hold 10% for 'big guy'" is so hard for you to understand? Your attempts at gaslighting here are getting out of hand. Clearly Joe being on the articles of incorporation was not part of the scheme - keeping him off by titling his share in Hunter's name was. Period. End of story. Stop making a complete fool of yourself here.

By the way...the 5 principals each got 20% of the shares...so where is the 10% for Joe?

He was not in public office in 2017. So why break the law to hide his involvement? You are suggesting that there is some scheme to hide 10% of the company shares....so where were those shares to be registered?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

By the way...the 5 principals each got 20% of the shares...so where is the 10% for Joe?

He was not in public office in 2017. So why break the law to hide his involvement? You are suggesting that there is some scheme to hide 10% of the company shares....so where were those shares to be registered?

He got half of Hunter's action. He was the real "principal" on the deal (Hunter got half for being the "nominal owner"). Or do you think a crack and sex addicted imbecile was entitled to a full share of this deal based on what he brought to the table?

 

[middleview]

He got half of Hunter's action. He was the real "principal" on the deal (Hunter got half for being the "nominal owner"). Or do you think a crack and sex addicted imbecile was entitled to a full share of this deal based on what he brought to the table?

Why would Joe get any part of it? He was a private citizen and certainly legally could have been part of the corporation. The email suggests 20% for four of the principals and 10% for "Jim" and 10% for the big guy. The incorporation records show Jim got 20%.

There are no records showing any money changed hands between Joe and the company or Hunter or "Jim".

I'll remind you that I've previously posted on classes I was required to attend every year that I worked for either banks or brokerages....and that would be most of my jobs from 1987 to now.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Why would Joe get any part of it? He was a private citizen and certainly legally could have been part of the corporation. The email suggests 20% for four of the principals and 10% for "Jim" and 10% for the big guy. The incorporation records show Jim got 20%.

There are no records showing any money changed hands between Joe and the company or Hunter or "Jim".

I'll remind you that I've previously posted on classes I was required to attend every year that I worked for either banks or brokerages....and that would be most of my jobs from 1987 to now.

So they changed the bag man to Jim. Joe probably felt he couldn't trust his drug addled son to hold up his end of the bargain. I am, quite frankly, not surprised...

 

[middleview]

So they changed the bag man to Jim. Joe probably felt he couldn't trust his drug addled son to hold up his end of the bargain. I am, quite frankly, not surprised...

Do you have evidence that any money made it to Joe from "Jim"? Is there any evidence that Joe had anything to do with the company?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Do you have evidence that any money made it to Joe from "Jim"? Is there any evidence that Joe had anything to do with the company?

"10 percent held for the 'big guy.'"

 

[middleview]

"10 percent held for the 'big guy.'"

The email was a suggestion. Do you have evidence that it was actually done?
The 5 partners each registered 20% of the shares in their own names. So how in hell would Joe ever profit from them? At some point they'd have to be transferred to him or sold and the cash deposited in his account.

 

[middleview]

"10 percent held for the 'big guy.'"

and how did he cash in? How was money transferred to Joe....

I took classes almost every year on money laundering and compliance. What training have you had?

Why would they chance felony prosecution for a perfectly legal transaction by attempting to hide Joe's participation?

 

[Colorforms]

Literally the pretext the Trump White House came up with for firing Comey was that he was too biased against Hillary Clinton and violated DOJ policy in his personal crusade to keep her from being elected.

Rod Rosenstein's letter recommending Comey be fired

This is the letter in full by the deputy attorney general, recommending Comey be sacked.

www.bbc.com

This was the pretext for Comey's firing.

 

[EatTheRich]

Rod Rosenstein's letter recommending Comey be fired

This is the letter in full by the deputy attorney general, recommending Comey be sacked.

www.bbc.com

This was the pretext for Comey's firing.

Yup, from your link:

Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

 

[Colorforms]

Yup, from your link:

Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

Like all propagandists, you only read the parts you want and ignore the rest.

"The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department "

 

[Raoul_Luke]

and how did he cash in? How was money transferred to Joe....

I took classes almost every year on money laundering and compliance. What training have you had?

Why would they chance felony prosecution for a perfectly legal transaction by attempting to hide Joe's participation?

Are you aware of the joint accounts Joe, Jim and Hunter maintained? If Jim made a $500,000 deposit and Joe wrote checks on that account to remodel his beach house, how exactly are the "compliance" people going to see that (if they are even looking, which they obviously weren't)?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The email was a suggestion. Do you have evidence that it was actually done?
The 5 partners each registered 20% of the shares in their own names. So how in hell would Joe ever profit from them? At some point they'd have to be transferred to him or sold and the cash deposited in his account.

LOL! Yeah, there is literally no way to move money around between various parties without the feds seeing it. That's why the Mafia went out of business.

 

[EatTheRich]

Like all propagandists, you only read the parts you want and ignore the rest.

"The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department "

So you think he was alleging that Lynch had an anti-Clinton conflict of interest and he was humping in to protect Clinton? No … that the case would be closed without prosecution was a foregone conclusion since there was no case to prosecute, and he preemptively announced it to create the pretext for smearing her.