AG Barr Sees No Reason to Appoint Special Counsel for Hunter Biden or Election Investigations

The Attorney General says "No" to the President on his way out the door, leaving Jeff Rosen in charge of DOJ.

In what may have been his last press conference as the U.S. Attorney General, William Barr said that he sees no reason to appoint a special counsel to take over the Hunter Biden investigation and no reason to appoint a special counsel to investigate any aspects of the 2020 presidential election. He also contradicted the President in pointing the finger at Russia for the recently revealed hacks of several government agencies.

From the Associated Press report:

The president has . . . grown particularly angry that Barr didn't announce the existence of a two-year-old investigation of Hunter Biden before the election. On Monday, Barr said that investigation was "being handled responsibly and professionally."

"I have not seen a reason to appoint a special counsel and I have no plan to do so before I leave," he said, adding that there was also no need for a special counsel to investigate the election. . . .

Barr's statements on the special counsel may make it easier for Rosen to resist pressure from the White House to open any special counsel investigation. . . .

Trump has consulted on special counsels with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, White House counsel Pat Cipollone and outside allies, according to several Trump administration officials and Republicans close to the White House who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized discuss the matter publicly.

In a prior AP interview, AG Barr said that the Justice Department had reviewed allegations of election improprieties and had found no evidence of widespread election fraud that could have influenced the outcome of the election.

Meanwhile, Axios reports that some in the White House are concerned Trump may axe White House counsel Pat Cipollone and replace him with a "fringe loyalist," who would presumably be more receptive to the President's last-ditch (and futile) efforts to remain in office.

Also from the Axios report:

The person who has the worst job in Washington, according to multiple administration officials: the incoming head of the Justice Department, Jeffrey Rosen.

• The consensus is he has no earthly idea the insanity he is in for.
• The next month will be the longest of his life.

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

Barr apparently saw his job as running out the clock, so I'm not surprised. He's got a long history of this sort of thing, he "saw no evil" at Ruby Ridge, too.

[Krychek_2]

Or, maybe there really is nothing to the Hunter Biden story or the claims of election fraud.

[loki13]

I don't think that there's much to the Hunter Biden story (in terms of the fevered dreams of many people), but to the extent that he has tx problems and so on, that's already an ongoing investigation.

[grb]

The so-called "big" Hunter scandal - the Shokin firing - was always a farce no serious person could take seriously. By extension, his hire by Burisma on the basis of name alone was sordid, but neither illegal or unusual. The corporate world is full of people on boards for some theoretical return of "prestige" alone. Indeed, at the same time Burisma acquired a Biden, they also went out and got an ex-president of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski.

This was the same time they hired Alan Apter as board chairman (an investment banker who has worked in the United States and Europe), brought in a new executive team, and hired established international firms to audit its reserves & financial results. It was Extreme Makeover, Corporate Edition.

That leaves a money laundering investigation in Delaware abandoned as a dry well, and the tax thing. There, Barr found a particular rabid right-wing prosecutor, so if anything is to be found it'll come out.

There well might be. In fact, it's not impossible Hunter might pull some jail time over it. Perhaps even sharing a cell with Trump. (I've never been into prison humor, but there are possibilities here)

[M L]

They're not stupid: the returns are real, on the whole, and worth it. That's why they do it.

Within hours after Biden forced the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor general, by threatening $1b in loan guarantees as an explicit quid pro quo, Burisma's American representatives sought a meeting with the new guy replacing Shokin regarding the ongoing serious investigations into Burisma and its president. They had a meeting, and the years-long cases were suddenly wrapped up quickly a few months later.

Of course, I am sure this is all just a coincidence in this case, but you can see how this sort of thing would appear fishy to a reasonable observer. And indeed how sausage of politics and money might be made.

Who were these American representatives for Burisma? Politically connected types, as you might expect. Acting through a firm they called Blue Star Strategies. One of the more interesting things was that on Blue Star's board of directors sat one Robert Hunter Biden. But again, that is just a coincidence.

Strangely, documents show that these representatives "apologized" to the Ukrainians for the American creation of the "false" narrative that Shokin was corrupt. That was one of their opening lines of approach as Biden was having Shokin fired.

After Hunter Biden stepped down, Burisma hired a career CIA spook, Blackwater guy and Romney advisor to its board of directors, probably because he knows a lot about oil and gas in Ukraine.

[Sarcastr0]

You've come nowhere near making a case with all this handwaiving about things being fishy. Nothing you state actually appeared to indicate anything about Hunter, except that you declare it does.

Biden was acting in furtherance of existing US policy, the consensus of European countries, and the IMF. He was asked by the State Department to do this. And multiple independent foreign policy analysts at the time said that firing Shokin would have increased the likelihood Burisma would be investigated.

But I'm sure for you this just shows how deep the conspiracy goes.

[M L]

Excuse me, as I just said, this is all just a coincidence. Nobody is "making a case" here. Making a case only comes after investigation and there isn't any investigation. Even suggesting that this should be investigated is actually a high crime and misdemeanor, in case you didn't know.

[James Pollock]

" Nobody is 'making a case' here."

You can only speak for you, but I'll concede that you absolutely are not making a case, though not for lack of trying.

[bernard11]

meeting with the new guy replacing Shokin regarding the ongoing serious investigations into Burisma and its president.

This is bullshit. As has been endlessly pointed out, there were no "ongoing serious investigations."

Stop repeating crap you hear on OAN.

[M L]

Wrong. Stop repeating crap you hear on . . . MSNBC? I've never watched OAN in my life. Here's a more interesting source. https://www.kyivpost.com/business-wire/john-buretta-us-important-close-casesagainst-burisma-nikolayzlochevskyiin-legally-sound-manner.html

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside what you think that link proves (hint: nothing about what you've been saying), here's a hint: that's a press release from Burma. Why would you consider that an "interesting source"?

[David Nieporent]

Darn autocorrect. Burisma, not Burma.

[grb]

(We need an edit function)

[James Pollock]

Get it right the first time.

[M L]

Bernard11 was unfortunately led to believe, presumably by watching CNN or reading the NYT or something, that there was no investigation of Burisma and its founder.

As he notes, this was "endlessly pointed out." But no matter how endlessly it was repeated, it was, unfortunately, a lie.

How to show this to bernard? You could cite a right wing media source, some independent journalists, etc. The problem is bernard will dismiss any of that out of hand and assume it's false information, since it does not come from left wing propaganda outlets.

That's why it may be better to cite foreign media and Burisma itself speaking through its US attorney. Burisma itself announcing that, yes, there were investigations and cases against Burisma and Zlochevskyi. They were finally all wrapped up, settled and closed in January 2017 (after Biden and his friends at Blue Star got involved.)

I thought that this would have been obvious.

[David Nieporent]

Bernard11 was unfortunately led to believe, presumably by watching CNN or reading the NYT or something, that there was no investigation of Burisma and its founder.

No, that's not what he said. What he said, and I quote — though I shouldn't have to, since his words are right above — is "This is bullshit. As has been endlessly pointed out, there were no “ongoing serious investigations.”" Emphasis added.

And he is correct. Everyone across the board agreed that Shokin was, at best, going through the motions of an investigation. The notion that he was conducting a serious investigation is something that was invented several years later, after Ukrainegate broke.

[M L]

Ahh, yes of course. There was an investigation, but it wasn't a "serious" one! At least, not "serious" enough for David Nieporent, nor for some international crime-fighting heroes at the IMF and the Obama state dept.

I am glad they were able to sort that out by . . . getting Shokin fired and replacing him with prosecutors that promptly dropped all investigations and charges against Burisma and Zlochevskyi. Impressive. You understand why Biden would boast about this accomplishment and his use threats to foreign aid as a quid pro quo.

[donojack]

There were asset seizures of Zlochevsky's property. Until Biden had Shokin fired Z was forced to live outside Ukraine. After the squeaky-clean Lutsenko, Shokin's successor, took over Z got his stuff back and was able to come back. Guilty and hell and free as a bird.

Do you people really believe that Joe wasn't on the take with Burisma? I almost think you do. At the time I figured that you wanted to get Trump so badly that you had to pretend that Joe was clean, otherwise the impeachment thingy wouldn't fly.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you people really believe that Joe wasn’t on the take with Burisma? I almost think you do.

Your bad faith framing betrays you.

You've proven nothing about Lutsenko, much less Hunter, much less the President Elect.

[donojack]

I'm going to guess that providing enough proof for you would be a difficult task indeed.

Also give up the bad faith crap.

[Sarcastr0]

You're the one accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being on Biden’s payroll.

I suppose I should be lucky you didn't roll with Soros.

[donojack]

You’re the one accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being on Biden’s payroll.

I don't think you are on Biden's payroll. You fall into the other category I mentioned.

[James Pollock]

"Do you people really believe that Joe wasn’t on the take with Burisma?"

Uh, Yeah.
These guys hired on the son of the US vice President, despite his not knowing anything about the business he was supposed to help direct. That's fishy, and points towards the people making decisions for the company thought they were getting something that wasn't in public view. Hunter took the money, because nobody ever wants to be handed money they haven't honestly earned. What's missing is any sign that Joe was influenced by the influence these jokers thought they were buying. Other than claiming that Eastern-European business operations are hopelessly corrupt, what was accomplished here?

[Sarcastr0]

Sons of famous people are put on boards all the time merely to draft off of the name - it makes the company seems more important.

I don't like that, but it's not really easily stoppable.

[donojack]

These sons of politicians are put on boards and given no-work jobs because the money they receive does not have to be disclosed, as opposed to the politician and his/her spouse.

[David Nieporent]

He didn't say "sons of politicians." He said "sons of famous people."

[David Nieporent]

These guys hired on the son of the US vice President, despite his not knowing anything about the business he was supposed to help direct.

This is a bad framing. A board of directors does not manage the day to day operations of a business. He was there to oversee corporate governance, which he did know something about. Not to drill for gas.

[James Pollock]

"A board of directors does not manage the day to day operations of a business."

Point to where someone said they did.

Directors direct. They hire the C-level management, and make decisions about investing resources.

[donojack]

Biz whiz. Yep. It's amazing that you keep going with this.

[Mike Hansberry]

Hunter's boss got a sham trial that resulted in a slap on the wrist, no criminal conviction, and no clawing back of his ill gotten extraction permits.

But you knew that.

The Qui Pro Quo pressure applied by Hunter's daddy is not in question, that jackass went in front of cameras and bragged about it.

Hunter's no show employment with Burisma is also not in question.

The outcome of the Burisma/Zlochevski investigation and trial by the Biden installed prosecutor is also known and it plainly favors Zlochevski.

Did someone pull the wool over Joe's eyes and get him to push for an even more corrupt prosecutor? Or did Joe Biden know that his actions would lead to Zlochevski walking freely? How did the outcome of the new prosecutor's efforts further the State department's goal of cleaning up corruption in Ukraine?

There is a lot we do not know for certain, but we won't ever know if there is not a full investigation.

[David Nieporent]

One of the more interesting things was that on Blue Star’s board of directors sat one Robert Hunter Biden. But again, that is just a coincidence.

It is an untruth. You appear to have misread something. Hunter was on Burisma's board of directors, not Blue Star's.

[bernard11]

He doesn't care.

[M L]

You may be right, it looks like I read something that was poorly worded.

Nonetheless, H Biden was connected to Blue Star and the New York Times even reported that Hunter Biden was the one that connected Burisma with Blue Star! That's even far more significant to this context than if Biden was on a board of Blue Star.

But this is getting to be an awful lot of discussion and details about something that does not warrant any kind of investigating or reporting on. To even suggest that it should be investigated is actually a high crime and misdemeanor.

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, suggesting that there be an inevitably partisan investigation is just partisan toolishness.

[James Pollock]

Brett being Brett, in other words.

[Brett Bellmore]

Then you get into the payments to "the big guy", and it starts to get serious.

[David Nieporent]

There were no "payments to the big guy."

1) We don't know who "big guy" is. But let's assume it refers to Joe.
2) There's a question mark after that bullet point.
3) There were no payments, because that was about a deal that never happened.
4) And, of course, Joe Biden was a private citizen at the time, so it couldn't show any wrongdoing anyway.

[donojack]

That deal didn't happen but other China deals did, starting in 2013 when the big guy wasn't a private citizen. Joe lied about having no knowledge of Hunter's business dealings. Hunter's emails claim that he was keeping the 10% for the big guy. One should assume that this was the typical arrangement going back to Burisma etc. Also Hunter complained about having to fork over half of his earnings to Joe. Who paid for Joe's several mansions, Hunter?

Joe has had a "For Sale" sign around his neck since he started in politics. Remember the "Senator from MBNA"? Politics is a family enterprise and the product is influence.

[Sarcastr0]

This is just unsupported fictions.

Joe's not really living high on the hog, which kinda puts the lie to his selling himself.

[donojack]

Do you deny:
That Joe lied about having no knowledge of Hunter's biz dealings.
That Hunter's email said he was keeping 10% for "the big guy."
That Joe has several mansions. (One is 10,000 square feet.)
That Hunter's business got 1.5 billion in loan guarantees after a 2013 trip with Joe to China.
That Hunter's email to his daughter said that he had to give Joe half his earnings.

Now please tell me where you find these "unsupported fictions."

[Sarcastr0]

I deny 1

2 is not relevant since no deal occurred

3 As though homes are wealth. Biden and his wife Jill are worth $9 million, well below the average in Congress.

4 You're lying again. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-s-trip-china-son-hunter-2013-comes-under-new-n1061051.

5 is too deep into the BS swamps for even I to know what you're talking about.

[donojack]

Sarcastro,

If you begin by denying 1 then you have zero credibility. I won't accuse you of lying as you do me but of being hopelessly uninformed. Joe is on camera claiming to have no knowledge of Hunter's business dealings.

[David Nieporent]

Do you deny:
That Joe lied about having no knowledge of Hunter’s biz dealings.

Yes.

That Hunter’s email said he was keeping 10% for “the big guy.”

Yes.

That Joe has several mansions. (One is 10,000 square feet.)

He owns several nice properties. I don't see any that are 10,000 square feet. (Is that the twitter b.s. about the former DuPont home, that (a) he doesn't own anymore, and (b) that he bought for just $185k?)

That Hunter’s business got 1.5 billion in loan guarantees after a 2013 trip with Joe to China.

Yes.

That Hunter’s email to his daughter said that he had to give Joe half his earnings.

Well, it wasn't an email, and it hasn't been authenticated, and it doesn't actually say that, but other than that, sure.

[James Pollock]

"One should assume that this was[...]"

On the contrary, one should avoid assuming where actual knowledge is lacking. It avoids embarrassment.

[David Nieporent]

Hunter’s emails claim that he was keeping the 10% for the big guy.

No. There's no such email, let alone "emails."

[James Pollock]

But surely Giuliani's stooge based all the fake emails on actual emails, right? I mean, the NSA does intercept email sent from outside the USA to mail servers inside, so they'd have actual templates to work from, right?

[donojack]

Right. We just made that up. Oh and Burisma wanted Hunter because he was a biz whiz.

[Sarcastr0]

You back up nothing, refuse to engage with countervailing evidence, and appeal to incredulity.

You're the laziest poster on here.

[David Nieporent]

You did make it up. You're referencing a single email — not "emails" — and it was from a guy named James Gillar. Not from Hunter.

And it said, in describing the equity in a proposed deal (that never happened): "10 held by H for the big guy ?"

See the question mark? So you've turned James Gillar asking whether that's the case into Hunter Biden claiming that's the case.

(And again, we don't know who the Big Guy is.)

[James Pollock]

"Then you get into the payments to “the big guy”, and it starts to get serious."

You imagine this one way, but that imposes no obligation on me to imagine the same thing you do.

[donojack]

Only a complete fool or somebody on Biden's payroll would think that this was anything but influence peddling.

Shokin had no independent authority, he was simply Poroshenko's attack dog. After Yanukovych was ousted in February, 2014 Poroshenko made it clear to Zlochevsky that more bribe money would be needed than Yanukovych had demanded. So in April of that year Z decided to buy some protection for the very cheap rate of 83,000 per month.

The demand for Shokin's ouster was simply a message to Poroshenko. P resisted the pressure and put the screws to Z when Z missed a five million dollar payment. After Z's assets were seized Biden stepped up the pressure and held the billion dollar aid package. P decided that he could siphon off more of the aid money than he would squeeze out of Z so he fired Shokin and put in Lutsenko who promptly restored Z to good health.

Nobody cared about corruption in Ukraine. Lutsenko was notoriously corrupt, as of course were Shokin and Poroshenko. Maybe some of the dopes at the EU and the IMF believed the State Dept and Biden's bullshit about wanting to clean up corruption but probably they were just going along with what the big dog wanted.

[James Pollock]

"Nobody cared about corruption in Ukraine."

Corruption in Ukraine is Ukraine's problem.
Imaginary corruption of Joe Biden is imaginary.
If you actually ARE interested in actual, REAL corruption of Americans, keep your eye on what Trump's asking price for a pardon does as he gets close to being dragged out of office.

[grb]

From the period (before Shokin became a right-wing fantasy figure) :

Irish Times, Tue, Mar 29, 2016 :

"The European Union has welcomed the dismissal of Ukraine’s scandal-ridden prosecutor general and called for a crackdown on corruption, even as the country’s political crisis deepened over efforts to form a new ruling coalition and appoint a new prime minister.

Ukraine’s parliament voted overwhelmingly to fire Viktor Shokin, ridding the beleaguered prosecutor’s office of a figure who is accused of blocking major cases against allies and influential figures and stymying moves to root out graft.

“This decision creates an opportunity to make a fresh start in the prosecutor general’s office. I hope that the new prosecutor general will ensure that [his] office . . . becomes independent from political influence and pressure and enjoys public trust,” said Jan Tombinski, the EU’s envoy to Ukraine.

“There is still a lack of tangible results of investigations into serious cases . . . as well as investigations of high-level officials within the prosecutor general’s office,” he added.

Mr Tombinski said the EU was also concerned about the resignation or dismissal of several “reform-oriented” prosecutors and reports that Mr Shokin’s office was investigating a “highly-respected” anti-corruption group – an obvious reference to Kiev’s Anti-Corruption Action Centre, which had fiercely criticised Mr Shokin"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/eu-hails-sacking-of-ukraine-s-prosecutor-viktor-shokin-1.2591190

[Sarcastr0]

Only a complete fool or somebody on Biden’s payroll would think that this was anything but influence peddling.

I get that you're very, very, sure of this thing that you don't have much knowledge about in an arena you don't have a lot of knowledge of.

That you can't figure how others might be more circumspect says more about you than anyone else.

[donojack]

I have to say it's funny seeing you say that I don't have much knowledge about this because, honestly your grasp of these issues doesn't even rise to sketchiness. Try to refute some of my actual assertions instead of just claiming that I don't know anything, don't have proof, am acting in bad faith; in other words what you do constantly.

[Sarcastr0]

No U doesn't work well outside of the playground.

[aluchko]

I wonder if keeping the Hunter investigation under wraps (as the DOJ is supposed to do) was Barr protecting Trump from himself.

Trump certainly wanted the announcement before election (and would have made it if he'd know of the investigation).

But a suspect DOJ seemingly acquiescing to your demands to investigate your opponent's kid isn't actually that great a look during an election.

[bernard11]

I don't think so.

Until the election he clearly saw his job as doing anything he could think of to help Trump.

Now he's trying to re-establish some sort of respectability by jumping from the sinking ship. Unfortunately, he'll probably get away with it.

[James Pollock]

Barr was a loyal lapdog to the President, but Trump lost the election and isn't going to be President any more

[Dr. Ed 2]

Barr was also allegedly involved in the Barry Seal/Mena Arkansas drug mess. The real disappointment is John Durham.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 : The real disappointment is John Durham.

Why? Because he refused to find something that didn't exist?

[Allutz]

There are some prosecutions that the IG report made clear were optional for anyone to pick up and make ironclad 1001 cases (you know, to show people that there isn't a 2 tiered justice system). McCabe and Feb 14, 2016 "Witness 1" both are cases a 1L could successfully prosecute.

[bernard11]

Trying to help Barr get rehabilitated?

[Michael W. Towns]

Another day, another anti-Trump post by addled Addler.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

They're called "facts."

Cry harder.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It sounds like the clingers are getting crankier.

They must be tired of winning.

[Libertymike]

Recommended reading for you, Rev:

Benjamin Franklin's short essay, "Information to Those Who Would Remove to America."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I strongly doubt Ben had the half-educated bigots and science-disdaining, superstitious clingers in mind with that one.

[jdgalt1]

If it's facts you're looking for: Barr owns shares in Dominion.

The fat lady has not sung yet.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sweet! Let me get my tinfoil hat before you continue the meeting of whackjob idiots.

I don't want your delusions of conspiracies at every turn corrupting my brain.

Seriously, you people are deranged.

[Libertymike]

Allusions to tinfoil hats are tired and so unimaginative.

[James Pollock]

Tell the conspiracy theorists to update their fashion statements, and people will quit laughing at their old fashion choices. They'll probably still be laughing at the conspiracy theorists, though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

jdgalt1, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Flynn, and Patrick Byrne are on the case!

At some point, kicking these clingers around isn't even sporting.

[Libertymike]

Rev, Sidney has a BA and JD from UNC.

She was 23 at the time of her law school graduation.

She started her own law firm.

She has written several books, including a best seller.

Thus, it would appear, that her profile does not square with your conceptions of "half-educated" or "bigoted" or "science disdaining."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She appears to have lost her tether to the reality-based world, afflicted by delusional conspiracy theories that are interfering with her judgment and performance, and seems headed toward disbarment or perhaps worse.

She is a certified, although not necessarily certifiable, clinger.

You should continue to defend her, though, Libertymike. Your record of being on the wrong side of issues and history would square with nothing less than a vigorous defense of Sidney Powell's adventures in legal dumbassery.

[Libertymike]

Rev, you have mischaracterized my post from one of asking you to square your conceptions about educational gravitas as applied to Ms. Powell to one of defending her.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I described Sidney Powell as a clinger. That description stands.

[bernard11]

"Reality-disdaining" then.

Even smart people can go crazy.

[David Nieporent]

I think you've forgotten the MyPillow guy.

[David Nieporent]

Barr owns, or owned, shares in Dominion Energy. See, just like Four Seasons Hotel and Four Seasons Total Landscaping are unrelated entities, Dominion Energy and Dominion Voting are not the same thing.

[James Pollock]

That's what the conspiracy WANTS you to think. They're hiding in plain sight.

[LawTalkingGuy]

If I were Biden/Biden DOJ I would probably 1) not replace the current U.S. Attorney for Delaware and let him continue the investigation unimpeded. It appears he's a DOJ career person rather than a political hack like his neighbor to the north so he shouldn't detract too much from broader policy initiatives. 2) consider appointing a special counsel for this matter anyway to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Maybe a recent Trump DOJ alum who is not sticking around and is more or less generally respected. Justin Herdman from NDOH might be a good choice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The next month will be the longest of his life."

NeverTrumpers, hysterical to the end.

[Krychek_2]

Not necessarily. It's possible to love Trump and still acknowledge the reality that heading the Justice Department for the next month is going to be a miserable experience.

Though that's not my position. My position is that anybody venal or stupid enough to work for Trump deserves the bad things that will inevitably come their way.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They deserved to be mocked, scorned, and shunned by decent Americans . . . until replacement.

[Bob from Ohio]

"miserable experience."

Oh noes, I can call myself former Acting Attorney General as I get that high paying law job. So trying.

People have real problems, this is not one.

[Krychek_2]

That will be next month. This month will still be the longest month of his life.

[Bob from Ohio]

Then he has lived a charmed life.

No sickness, no family deaths, no marriage problems, never bullied as a child, never injured.

[James Pollock]

How can you claim "no sickness" for anyone in Trump's inner circle? Or are we still claiming that COVID is an anti-Trump hoax that only the mass media believes in?

[raspberrydinners]

Still a POS regardless. And it's hysterical Rs cry about investigating Hunter Biden, etc. I mean, they had years worth of offenses right in the white house right now. But hey- don't want to ACTUALLY be about law and order now do we?

[Sidney r finkel]

In what universe is there even any consideration of a special prosecutor for Hunter Biden? He is not nor ever was in government. His possible offense is apparently tax related, something that can easily be determined (although why it is taking years is total mystery probably related to politics).

That this is even being discussed is an indication of how much Trumper has corrupted the DOJ and the national debate.

[Bob from Ohio]

"any consideration of a special prosecutor for Hunter Biden?"

His father will appoint the person investigating him and all of the people that person reports to.

[ThePublius]

Sidney, isn't influence peddling illegal? I'm pretty sure it is. Hunter's crime would be the participation in a conspiracy to peddle the influence of his father, the VP at the time, in return for favored treatment for China and potentially other governments and companies.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Despite your fantasy, he is being investigated for tax fraud.

[ThePublius]

Where do you think the money involved came from?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Sorry, imaginative delusions and speculation aren't something I engage with, other than to laugh at you fools.

[ThePublius]

Yet another content free, insulting post by Jason Cavanaugh. Don't you ever tire of this?

[De Oppresso Liber]

That which can be asserted without content can be dismissed without content.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

My post has as much content as your cultist speculations.

I treat you as you deserve. Come back to reality, or continue being regarded as the nutjobs of America.

[jb]

If we're going based on the timeline from the Laptop From Hell, Biden was not VP at the time. That was Burisma, but seems like the right has given up on that one. You're confusing your Hunter conspiracies!

[ThePublius]

That's not so, jb. Emails on the laptop go back to 2014, perhaps earlier. I believe Joe was VP then, no?

[James Pollock]

The fake emails on the fake Hunter's laptop don't establish anything.

[grb]

ThePublius : Sidney, isn’t influence peddling illegal?

Sure, but difficult to establish, even with much more clear-cut facts than anything you can provide on Hunter. I'll illustrate quoting a New York Times story from 28 May 2018 :

"BEIJING — China this month awarded Ivanka Trump seven new trademarks across a broad collection of businesses, including books, housewares and cushions. At around the same time, President Trump vowed to find a way to prevent a major Chinese telecommunications company from going bust, even though the company has a history of violating American limits on doing business with countries like Iran and North Korea.

Coincidence? Well, probably."

Given the sons, daughters, and in-laws of Trump have been carrying on business in countries around the world these past four years, perhaps you want a more restrictive reading of the law. But why limit ourselves to second-tier Trumps, when we can go to the big guy himself? Quote from December, 2015 :

"I have a little conflict of interest, because I have a major, major building in Istanbul ... It's called Trump Towers. Two towers, instead of one. Not the usual one, it's two"

Kinda makes Trump's bizarre policies towards Turkey and the Kurds more understandable, huh?

[De Oppresso Liber]

And now he's alone in blaming China for Russia's hack -- again.

Coincidence, I'm sure.

[David Nieporent]

Sidney, isn’t influence peddling illegal? I’m pretty sure it is.

No. There is no crime called "influence peddling." There are specific acts that might loosely be described as "influence peddling" that are criminal, I guess. But that does not mean that waving around a vague term like that means everything under that banner is illegal.

It's hard to see how anything Hunter Biden supposedly did in that regard would be criminal. (I'm setting aside tax evasion.) If Hunter Biden actually tried to or did secure special treatment for someone in exchange for money by lobbying Joe Biden (or anyone else in government) it might require that he register as a lobbyist, and his failure to do so might be illegal. But there's certainly no law against taking money in exchange for lobbying.

[James Pollock]

"Sidney, isn’t influence peddling illegal?"

If you have any to peddle. If any foreign governments want to give ME a big pile of money to tell Mr. Biden what to do, I can easily deliver on anything they might need, and there'll be no trace of my influence for the FBI to track down.

[Orbital Mechanic]

In what universe? Easy: look at the Republican playbook.

They don't give a damn about the true facts or procedure or constitutional boundaries or anything. They want a big, noisy, investigation by someone that will play on media 24/7 and convince their gullible base that "something is wrong with Biden" and shave that many points off his next election.

It worked against Hillary. You have seen that Vox graphic which shows that the biggest thing anyone ever heard about Hillary in 2016 was "EMAILS!" and Republican McCarthy said the quiet part out loud: "great job of getting her poll numbers down." That cost him the speakership apparently. Hillary did not lose for any one reason but clearly that was one.

They want that show again for Biden. They are hoping that something circumstantial will show up that at very least will convince low-information voters that Biden is "just as bad as Trump." So they will vote Republican.

The motivation for this is not a legal pretext. It is pure hardball politics.

[David Nieporent]

In what universe is there even any consideration of a special prosecutor for Hunter Biden?

The special counsel regulation cites the following standard for the AG to make an appointment:

1) When he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted;
2) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances
3) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

I would say that investigating the son of the president would indeed present a conflict of interest. Now, Biden isn't the president yet, so one could argue that said appointment should wait a month. On the other hand, I would think we would also not want a person appointed by the president to investigate his general election opponent's son.

[James Pollock]

"I would say that investigating the son of the president would indeed present a conflict of interest."

Not unless that son has fingerprints on any government actions.

[Al S]

What is the standard for appointing a special counsel? I'm not sure I understand what differentiates the two cases.

[Bob from Ohio]

Here is the regulation:

28 CFR §600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

[Mr. Hook]

So he's going to get away with Benghazi, the fake moon landing, and Pearl Harbor? Justice is dead.

[James Pollock]

Sure hope he's never heard of EMAIL...

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's almost as if Barr has some sort of integrity. Maybe his summation of the Mueller Report wasn't as bad as the fevered dreams of some painted it to be.

[bernard11]

His summation of the Mueller Report was a sack of lies.

He has no integrity. At this point he values looking like he has integrity more than looking like a Trump toady. Prior to Nov. 3 his preferences ran the other way.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"His summation of the Mueller Report was a sack of lies."

These are the fevered dreams I'm talking about. Name one lie.

[De Oppresso Liber]

I mean, Mueller himself wrote to Barr that he had mischaracterized his report.

But go ahead and argue that the primary author doesn't know his own work, if you think that is a winner.

[bernard11]

"Completely exonerated."

[TwelveInchPianist]

Barr said that the Mueller report exonerated Trump of some claims, and the Justice department exonerated him of the rest. This was correct.

[De Oppresso Liber]

No, it is not correct.

"If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." --Mueller

[James Pollock]

Mueller said so -- W. Barr.

[De Oppresso Liber]

He didn't lie. He said, "Muller said, '...so...'."

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://www.justsecurity.org/64441/a-side-by-side-comparison-of-barrs-vs-muellers-statements-about-special-counsel-report/

Those are just the discrepancies in public statements.

Barr willfully misled the public as to the content of the Mueller Report long before he allowed some of it to be released, in a deliberate effort to distort the truth before it could come out.

You're 'remembering' an alternate version of the past which has no connection with reality.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Discrepancies? They have examples like, "insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy" contrasted with, "“There was
no evidence of Trump campaign ‘collusion’ with the Russian government’s hacking”.

No lies here.

[James Pollock]

If "insufficient evidence" meant the same thing as "no evidence".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Here's more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/mueller-report-william-barr-excerpts.html

[TwelveInchPianist]

No lies here. Just a bunch of uncharitable interpretation.

[Sarcastr0]

Name one lie.

This was all stuff we argued about at the time, TiP. And yet you somehow didn't store that information at all.

Don't be such a good case study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KFtQV7SiII

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This was all stuff we argued about at the time, TiP."

And you didn't make the case then, and aren't making it now.

You don't be such a case study.

[ah....Clem]

> Name one lie.

"The White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation,”

If that's not a bald faced lie, I don't know what is.

[arpiniant1]

Barr is simply trying to avoid going to prison

He is not going to work in this town again.

maybe Fauxnews or something

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Barr is simply trying to avoid going to prison
He is not going to work in this town again."

That sounds like some sort of Deep-State conspiracy theory.

[James Pollock]

Once you've burned all the bridges, you kind of have to give up on thoughts of walking off the island. no conspiracy needed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Isn't Barr old enough and rich enough to retire?

[James Pollock]

... to "spend more time with family"?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Media this Summer: "We hates the Bill Barr, he is fats and nasties!"

Media Now: "We love the precious!"

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, feel the love around here for him.

Work harder on your made up double standard next time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Work harder on your made up double standard next time."

I haven't kept up. Has the left admitted that there was a double standard on the Kavanaugh vs Biden assault allegations yet?

[Sarcastr0]

Changing the subject won't get you anywhere either.

[James Pollock]

" Has the left admitted that there was a double standard on the Kavanaugh vs Biden assault allegations yet?"

In the one case, the accused angrily counter-accused his accusors, and in the other, there was an apology and a promise to change behavior. Is that the "double standard" you're referring to?

[donojack]

Biden apologized and said he would stop finger-fucking interns?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He didn’t specify any love for Barr “around here”"

Jimmy the Dane referred to love for Barr in the media.

Sarcastro's "around here" presumably referred to bureaucratic Washington.

There seems to be a growing bipartisan recognition that these are pretty much the same thing.

[Sarcastr0]

He also didn't provide anyone in the media mentioning Barr in a good light either.

So quibble all you want, he's BSing either way.

[grb]

Here we go again : Yes, Biden demanded Shokin be fired. This was because :

01. That was the order of the President – who wasn’t concerned about Hunter.

02. Firing Shokin was a publicly-stated United States foreign policy objective. This had zero to do with Hunter.

03. The official State Department position was Shokin had to go. Hunter was irrelevant to this.

04. The U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine gave a speech in Odessa demanding Shokin be fired. Hunter wasn't a consideration to him.

05. Firing Shokin was a bi-partisan position of the U.S. Senate (including Lindsey Graham). Their group letter demanding this action failed to mention Hunter.

06. The European Union insisted Shokin be fired. The EU doesn’t care in the slightest about Hunter.

07. A World Bank official policy goal was Shokin had to go. The World Bank doesn’t worry about Hunter, then or now.

08. The IMF insisted on Shokin’s firing. None of its reasons concerned on Hunter.

09. The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development issued a policy statement demanding Shokin’s ouster. Hunter’s name doesn’t appear in the document.

10. There were street demonstration in Ukraine against Shokin alone. Every anti-corruption group in the country insisted he must go. When the prosecutor was finally pushed-out, the Kyiv Post described him as one of the most loathed figures in the entire country. I’m betting little of that was based on Hunter.

So what's left of your whack-a-loon conspiracy, ML?

[M L]

Something can be true and Russian disinformation at the same time. It's in how it's presented. You see, CNN burying and printing lies about the story before the election, then reversing course after the election with selective and positively spun details -- that's journalism. That's American information as opposed to Russian disinformation.

Make sure you stay alert to the enemy Russia's tricks. The CCP on the other hand is our friend. Just look at how they shower Bidens with millions of dollars and even a giant 2.8 carat diamond. So nice.

[Sarcastr0]

mad_kalak, that was about the laptop. Keep you smears straight.

Not that you care, really. No need for actual cognitive engagement when the real point is wallowing in other guys bad dopamine.

[Sarcastr0]

No one here mentioned China, ML. Also while something can be true and disinformation, both grb and myself provided no shortage of countervailing evidence.

And you pivoted to China.

Come on man, it should be evident even to you what you're doing.

[De Oppresso Liber]

mad_kalak, doing his damnedest to make every single issue, including foreign policy issues, into culture war issues.

[De Oppresso Liber]

I think our policies toward Russia have very little to do with them being a white majority country.

[grb]

mad_kalak : "Did Romney, who called them our biggest geo-political enemy back in the halycon days of 2012, ever get a collective apology?"

No, and he doesn't deserve one. Minus oil and a nuclear stockpile, Russia is more third-world country than global superpower. It's rotted thru with corruption; its economy is an inefficient mess; its foreign policy is little more that brat-child mischief. Compared to a growing strategic threat like China, Russia is a country in decay, fighting a rear-guard action against its own irrelevance. Here's one question : Name a country that's a solid ally of Russia? Syria?!? That's one indication just how unimportant Russia is.

Here's another question : If Russia was some over-arching major threat, do you think they'd be busy rat-f***king other country's elections, or poisoning every stray expatriate who ever irritated Putin? That stuff is a sign of weakness, not strength.

Granted, Russia is still capable of very ugly mischief indeed - as proven by their part electing a reality-TV-show buffoon as U.S. president. But that doesn't make them our biggest geo-political enemy. Russia is like that hopeless loser kid in the neighborhood always caught in the middle of some petty crime or vandalism. A nuisance to be sure, but hardly anything more.

[James Pollock]

" I mean, Putin’s not a nice guy, but the commies were worse."

Putin WAS a commie, back when the commies were running things in Russia.

[James Pollock]

"Something can be true and Russian disinformation at the same time."

Unless you use the dictionary definition of disinformation:
disinformation, noun
false information, as about a country's military strength or plans, disseminated by a government or intelligence agency in a hostile act of tactical political subversion
(source: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/disinformation )

I mean, if you're one of those people who thinks that things can be true and false at the same time, all bets are open.

[M L]

Why would Joe Biden disagree with the Obama administration and their globalist friends when he was part of the Obama administration? The fact that you think this is notable is bizarre.

As you have suggested, Shokin was fired under immense pressure from foreign Western interests precisely because he wasn't doing enough to prosecute Burisma and other corruption. These lovely folks are totally innocent and pure you see, and are motivated solely by a peculiarly strong altruistic desire to combat political corruption in a foreign sovereign land.

You can tell this is true because right after they achieved their mighty goal of firing the prosecutor general of a foreign country, the new prosecutors immediately closed all investigations and proceedings against Burisma and its president Zlochevskyi.

[Mike Hansberry]

Who benefitted from Shokin's removal?

Were the Ukrainian people satisfied with the sham trial that allowed Zlochevski to escape punishment and retain ownership of his very lucrative but ill gotten extraction permits? Is it the policy of the IMF or our State Department to cheer for corruption in Ukraine?

Joe Biden claims he knew nothing of his son’s dealings in Ukraine despite the fact that US ambassador Yovanovitch testified that she was told to direct questions regarding Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma to the VP’s Office. So who was lying, Joe or Yovanovitch?

The information gained from Hunter's computer also puts the lie to Joe's claim of not knowing about Hunter's dealings. Why would a person continue to insist on such a transparent lie?

Why was Hunter paid a whole lot of money for doing nothing?

Hunter’s boss Zlochevsky benefited greatly from Joe Biden getting one prosecutor fired and installing another who then ran a sham trail resulting in Zlochevsky getting off very lightly.

A special prosecutor is needed to determine if Hunter was acting as bagman for Joe, who was selling the office of VP.

[Sarcastr0]

No, m_k. When I point out Flynn and you nutpick some rando, it's not a double standard.

Sorry this pains you.

[Sarcastr0]

Postmodernist wankery is defeatism.

Have the curiosity to engage, not just say 'well who can say what is real, we're all to biased!' and quit the field.

[David Nieporent]

And the same media trashed Barr from day one, and now breathlessly take his conclusions as stated fact.

The claim is just a lie, of course.

But you don't seem to understand the concept of a statement against interest. If I say, "I didn't cheat on the test," nobody should just accept that, because it's natural to assert one's innocence. If I spontaneously say, "Actually, I cheated," you should take it seriously because people don't usually say that if they didn't.

Similarly, if Barr says that Trump is great and his adversaries are evil, well, that's what people working for Trump are generally required to say. But if Barr says, "Actually, Trump's adversaries didn't do anything wrong," that's meaningful.

[Sarcastr0]

Here's how to be productive and keep things in good faith:
Point it out when it happens, rather than just bringing it up as a bare assertion as some lame collateral attack.

[James Pollock]

"I would say that investigating the son of the president would indeed present a conflict of interest."

Says the guy who carefully deconstructed the argument the other guy didn't make.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't know much about Bezmenov, other than a radiolab on him I heard once.

The lack of a reachable objective truth is one of the tenets of postmodernism, and one I do not like, because it rejects the idea of productive debate.

Once you decide that's not a thing, it's all entertainment and there is no need for you to engage in good faith. Not a good road to go down.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Careful with accusations of pseudo intellectualism, Mr. white replacement theory.

[bernard11]

WTF are you talking about?

You, ML, Brett, AL, are off in some sort of conspiratorial fantasyland.

They are investigating Hunter Biden's taxes. Whether there is anything there or not remains to be seen, but it's not some deep plan to protect him.

Think about what you are saying:

1. Hunter Biden has a tax issue.
2. There is no investigation.
3. But an investigation is announced (by the Barr DOJ!!), and will be killed, so that if the issue comes up in the future he will have cover.

That's insane. Utterly bonkers. How can you believe that?

[James Pollock]

"The truth is, they aren’t really investigating Hunter Biden in any meaningful way."

The truth is, they're investigating Hunter Biden for things Hunter Biden actually did, or may have done, not the things that fever-dream imaginary Hunter Biden did, or the things that a Giuliani stooge pretending to be Hunter Biden did. the reality is boring, so the interest (such as it is) is on the pretend stuff.

[Mike Hansberry]

I believe you are correct on your points here.

When the laptop story broke, the thing that struck me the oddest was that the FBI had the laptop at same time Trump was just a few votes away from being the first president to be forcibly removed from office. They had the info Trump needed to turn the tables but they sat on it. It as though J. Edgar Hoover is still the chief. Hey Joe, that's a nice little presidency you got there...

Whether we call them the establishment or the deep state, they are truly anti-american assholes.

Barr's claim that they did not want to reveal the investigation before the election doesn't pass the smell test since they could have released the information regarding the seizure of the laptop to Congress in January 2020 during the Impeachment proceedings and well before Biden won the Dem primary.

Since they have sat on this for a year, my guess is that they never intended to do anything with it. Revealing it after the election is faked transparency.

[grb]

mad_kalak : "Silly, the laptop was so intricately intertwined... (etc)"

I asked this recently of one of your zombie brethren & never got a straight answer : I am a captive of the "lamestream" media, who (of course) tried to hide the truth about the laptop from me. So obviously I don't know the whole story, right? This is the little I was told :

(1) Hunter may have gotten a business associate a handshake w/ daddy.

(2) Hunter may have tried to cut pops in on a business deal when the latter (Joe) was already out-of-office & a private citizen. The deal fell through.

(3) Pops (Joe) may not have been 100% unaware of Sonny's (Hunter) business dealings.

And that's it. All the "scandals" from the laptop collected in one spot. Tell us all what's missing. What did the media cover up?

[James Pollock]

"the laptop was so intricately intertwined with the Hunter Biden bit"

The evidence that the laptop had any twining with Hunter Biden is so sketchy as to appeal only to a conspiracy theorist.

[James Pollock]

"The claim is just a lie, of course. "

But it *feels* so true, it just has to be true.

[aluchko]

To be clear, I think the investigation is legit (though I don't dare to guess if he's actually guilty of anything).

My thought was more to the point that Barr had a well documented history of bending the rules to help Trump, at least before Trump lost the election.

Therefore, I'm skeptical that Barr suddenly decided to not bend the rules and keep the investigation secret to Trump's disadvantage.

Instead, I suspect that Barr realized that an investigation announcement (or "accidental" leak) would look politically motivated, make Biden look sympathetic, and hurt Trump.

Not to mention ruining Barr's reputation in the progress.

That's why I suspect the investigation stayed under wraps.