• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Hunter's Business Partner Whistle-blower to House Oversight Committee

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,983
Points
1,060

Hunter Biden revealed longtime business partner was VP Biden's 'close confidant and counsel' in 2014 email​

A House Oversight Committee spox told Fox News Digital last week that Eric Schwerin will 'start producing documents' to the committee 'soon'​

Hunter Biden admitted in 2014 that his longtime business partner was a "close confidant and counsel" to then-Vice President Joe Biden, according to an email from his infamous abandoned laptop that was verified by Fox News Digital.

In February 2014, Eric Schwerin, the president of since-dissolved investment fund Rosemont Seneca Partners, emailed Hunter Biden asking him to review a letter of recommendation that he wrote on behalf of then-Vice President Biden and was planning to send to his office to be reviewed.


The DOJ and FBI can't sit on it now. Garland is in front of Committee right now trying to explain their slow walking the Biden file and now the guy that knows all the Biden secrets and skeletons, finances and businesses is whistle blowing. Testifying to the House Oversight Committee. Questions to the Bidens will have to be addressed now, not in two years. The Chairman says he has 3 more high level people that ran businesses with the Bidens, lined up to testify. Just the emails should be enough, but they are going to get it all. I smell impeachment.

Things are moving to the next level. Biden will have to go and Harris moves up. Somehow, I can't see it happening. She'll cock it up so bad another female won't get elected for a long time. Besides, I'm pretty sure there's another black female obama wants that honour to go to.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of exposure on the MSM.
 

Hunter Biden revealed longtime business partner was VP Biden's 'close confidant and counsel' in 2014 email​

A House Oversight Committee spox told Fox News Digital last week that Eric Schwerin will 'start producing documents' to the committee 'soon'​

Hunter Biden admitted in 2014 that his longtime business partner was a "close confidant and counsel" to then-Vice President Joe Biden, according to an email from his infamous abandoned laptop that was verified by Fox News Digital.

In February 2014, Eric Schwerin, the president of since-dissolved investment fund Rosemont Seneca Partners, emailed Hunter Biden asking him to review a letter of recommendation that he wrote on behalf of then-Vice President Biden and was planning to send to his office to be reviewed.


The DOJ and FBI can't sit on it now. Garland is in front of Committee right now trying to explain their slow walking the Biden file and now the guy that knows all the Biden secrets and skeletons, finances and businesses is whistle blowing. Testifying to the House Oversight Committee. Questions to the Bidens will have to be addressed now, not in two years. The Chairman says he has 3 more high level people that ran businesses with the Bidens, lined up to testify. Just the emails should be enough, but they are going to get it all. I smell impeachment.

Things are moving to the next level. Biden will have to go and Harris moves up. Somehow, I can't see it happening. She'll cock it up so bad another female won't get elected for a long time. Besides, I'm pretty sure there's another black female obama wants that honour to go to.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of exposure on the MSM.
BREAKINF NEWS! NEPOTISM IN POLITICS! I'M AGHAST!

Jared Kushner, anyone?

This is more about the "cover up of the story" than the substance of the story itself. And, as has been shown time and time again, there was enough reason for all the major news outlets to doubt this story. It wasn't them covering it up, it was them not being willing to run MAGA bullshit attack stories.

I predict no impeachment.
 
You know what's a much bigger story that should be covered across MSM? South Caroline state senators just drafted a bill to make the death penalty possible for women who have abortions.
Now now, anti abortion laws and stuff is just fear mongering remember.
 
You know what's a much bigger story that should be covered across MSM? South Caroline state senators just drafted a bill to make the death penalty possible for women who have abortions.

You're absolutely right. I had no idea and I just went and read about it. That's some real crazy shit.
 
South Caroline state senators just drafted a bill to make the death penalty possible for women who have abortions.

I would be surprised if South Carolina has ever executed a woman.
 
I would be surprised if South Carolina has ever executed a woman.
via wikipedia
Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of South Carolina. Between 1718 and 2021, more than 680 people have been executed in South Carolina.[1] After a nationwide capital punishment ban was overturned in 1976, South Carolina has executed 43 people.[2]

Since 2011, no one has been executed in the state due to pharmaceutical companies not wanting to sell the drugs needed for lethal injections. Lethal injection has been the legalized primary form of execution since 1995. Under the passage of Act 43 of 2021, executions are expected to resume with the electric chair as the primary form of execution.[3] In March 2022, the South Carolina Department of Corrections announced they were ready to carry out executions by firing squad. Inmates will now have the choice to be executed via electrocution or firing squad; with electrocution being the primary method.[4]

South Carolina nice place to visit but i wouldnt want to live there
 
Jared is already under investigation. So, by all means, treat them equally: investigate Hunter.

The irony of refusing to investigate a story that you think doesn't merit investigation is that you turn up nothing to show that it would merit investigation.
Second Part: True, except it coming up in the run up to the election changes the dynamic.

First part: the Trump DOJ and FBI had access to this laptop and never did anything. No formal investigations and no charges. We keep hearing MAGA bullshit about some smoking gun evidence from the laptop but nothing has ever been provided. Thats all I need to know the laptop story is itself a nothing burger. The real story and only potential issue is the suppression of the story itself, which as I said, made sense at the time, in my opinion.
 
Second Part: True, except it coming up in the run up to the election changes the dynamic.

First part: the Trump DOJ and FBI had access to this laptop and never did anything. No formal investigations and no charges. We keep hearing MAGA bullshit about some smoking gun evidence from the laptop but nothing has ever been provided. Thats all I need to know the laptop story is itself a nothing burger. The real story and only potential issue is the suppression of the story itself, which as I said, made sense at the time, in my opinion.
Odds of the laptop having any reliable and admissible evidence after passing through several sets of hands are slim. Continuity would be shot. But it’s fun reading the opinions of people who clearly don’t have a clue about digital forensics in the context of a criminal investigation.

If you don’t have a clean and attributable digital forensic image of the drive contents to start with, you can just about forget about getting anything held up as reliable in court.

Doesn’t mean Hunter’s cocaine dick pics aren’t hunter’s cocaine dick pics. But cocaine and having your dick out aren’t particularly unusual or damning in Washington, and he’s not an elected or appointed official himself anyway.
 
My specific area of curiousity is VP Biden, in Ukraine, in 2012 to 2016 as Obama's point man and the family's relations with Ukrainian, Russian and Chinese interests.
 
Odds of the laptop having any reliable and admissible evidence after passing through several sets of hands are slim. Continuity would be shot. But it’s fun reading the opinions of people who clearly don’t have a clue about digital forensics in the context of a criminal investigation.

If you don’t have a clean and attributable digital forensic image of the drive contents to start with, you can just about forget about getting anything held up as reliable in court.

Doesn’t mean Hunter’s cocaine dick pics aren’t hunter’s cocaine dick pics. But cocaine and having your dick out aren’t particularly unusual or damning in Washington, and he’s not an elected or appointed official himself anyway.

Are you still thinking like a lawyer? Or like a citizen?
 
Second Part: True, except it coming up in the run up to the election changes the dynamic.
Why? During an election is exactly when voters need the most information about the character and doings of the candidates, including their associations.
 
Are you still thinking like a lawyer? Or like a citizen?
No, like an investigator who knows what it looks like to turn allegations into reasonable belief and then into prosecution via evidence. That’s my little niche in the world.

The whole Hunter Biden conspiracy theorizing is pretty masturbatory by the MAGA types. It’s not compellling to anyone whose mind hasn’t been firmly made up for a long time anyway. And as someone alluded to above, if there was real meat to any of it, we all would have known long ago. And, as I alluded to, the ability of anyone to use that laptop or it’s purported contents as compelling and privatize evidence of anything is thoroughly shot due to how it has been handled.
 
No, like an investigator who knows what it looks like to turn allegations into reasonable belief and then into prosecution via evidence. That’s my little niche in the world.

The whole Hunter Biden conspiracy theorizing is pretty masturbatory by the MAGA types. It’s not compellling to anyone whose mind hasn’t been firmly made up for a long time anyway. And as someone alluded to above, if there was real meat to any of it, we all would have known long ago. And, as I alluded to, the ability of anyone to use that laptop or it’s purported contents as compelling and privatize evidence of anything is thoroughly shot due to how it has been handled.

I'm afraid we'll continue to differ on this one. I'll let you continue to speculate on how I might choose to enjoy my spare time. ;)
 
if there was real meat to any of it, we all would have known long ago
Ironically, I made/make a similar claim about the state of "Trump-Russian Collusion" before he formally took office. Apparently there was political advantage to be gained from gnawing the bone, though. That's also, at the least, the current state of affairs unless evidence emerges that investigations are being slow-walked or otherwise hindered.
 
the likelihood of being able to nail any of these guys on anything when everything is designed to avoid impicating them is low IMO

The likelihood of nailing any of our rulers anywhere seems slim to nil.


Unless we get lucky like Scotland.


The Sue Gray case? Sue Gray, a career civil servant was appointed to determine if Boris needed to be punished for eating cake on his birthday during lockdown. She said he did. After appointing a Labour supporter to do the investigation on her behalf.

She then quit the civil service and went to work for the Leader of the Opposition, Keith Starmer of Labour, as his Chief of Staff. She neglected to inform management that the days off she was taking were to negotiate terms with her friend Keith whom she has been on terms with since at least 2013.

Impartiality and integrity in evidence.

Go to the bottom of the page for the good news from Scotland. And possibly they only way out.



The Conservatives have ceded power to the useless, Leftist permanent establishment​

We happen to have heard of Sue Gray. But there are many civil servants like her pursuing their own partisan agendas
DANIEL HANNAN4 March 2023 • 4:22pm
Daniel Hannan


Do you get it now? Do you understand why the British state, after 13 years of Tory-led government, remains interventionist, eco-obsessed, euro-compliant, high-spending and woke? It’s because it is run by a standing bureaucracy that pursues its own agenda, more or less regardless of the ministers who are notionally in charge.
It has taken the appalling Sue Gray scandal to expose the seriousness of the problem. A senior civil servant, who had access to the most sensitive government secrets – that, after all, is what her propriety and ethics role involved – turns out to be a Labour partisan. A prime minister who had won the biggest Conservative majority since 1987 was brought down in part by an official who now proposes to work for Sir Keir Starmer.
Take a moment to recall the circumstances of that investigation. Boris Johnson and a dozen or so staff gathered briefly at his place of work to mark his birthday. There was no attempt to hide the fact: it was reported in a newspaper at the time. Johnson had earlier that day been presented with a cake while visiting a school. Again, the event was briefed to the press, and no one was scandalised.


This was June 2020, when restrictions were being eased, and it seemed as if the lockdown was gone for good.
Two years and two lockdowns later, Gray was asked to rule on the events. Her investigating barrister was a vocal Labour supporter, Daniel Stilitz, who had posted a mass of anti-Boris and anti-Brexit material online over years. The law here was murky and protean – Britain, after all, had never had a lockdown before – but their conclusions ultimately led to the toppling of a PM whom our Europhile elites had always hated.
Gray’s acknowledgment of her Labour sympathies might, frets Alex Thomas of the Institute for Government, “give critics a stick”. Ya think, Alex? An elected PM was brought down by a civil servant who now looks as though she opposed much of what he stood for? Yes, I rather think that might give the rest of us a stick to whack away at the self-righteous, unelected, pronoun-neutral Davos Men and Women who spent five years trying to undo Brexit.
The muted nature of the Institute for Government’s criticism is telling. That organisation – a collection of former civil servants and associated grandees – is supposedly there to invigilate and improve the system. Here is surely an open-and-shut case, where a bureaucrat who was in the innermost councils of government, armed with all the dirt on ministers, proposes to take her knowledge to the other party.
Apart from anything else, it is a clear breach of the Armstrong Memorandum, which lays down that “the duty of the individual civil servant is first and foremost to the Minister of the Crown who is in charge of the Department in which he or she is serving.”
Yet the Institute for Government can’t bring itself to condemn one of its own outright. Instead, it tells us that “Gray’s move, while surprising, was not a sign of politicisation,” and has the nerve to lecture Rishi Sunak, as though he is somehow responsible: “The prime minister’s task is not to stoke outrage.”
Jill Rutter, another former official who headed the Institute for Government for a decade, responded to the news with a neat demonstration of the everything-before-the-but-is-bulls--- grammatical rule: “I think the Gray move is a mistake, but perhaps it was seeing the massive failure of leadership laid bare during the partygate inquiry that tipped Sue into deciding she needed to help another party, with a commitment to raise standards, to prepare to govern.”
Even more striking was the response from Dave Penman, who heads the civil service trade union:
“Mistake for who? Labour get someone who can help them prepare for govt. Sue gets a unique opportunity to help shape a future govt. Those that claim it undermines the impartiality of the civil service were already claiming this and actively undermining its impartiality every day.”
Got that? A senior functionary breaks all the principles on which the Civil Service is meant to work, betrays the people she was working with and reveals her bias. But the threat to impartiality does not come from her; it comes from her critics.
It is this semi-closing of ranks that so utterly damns the system. Had the Institute for Government, the retired Labour ministers, the quango heads and the BBC panjandrums said, “this is an utter disgrace, but it is a one-off”, they might have salvaged some credibility.
But that, by and large, is not their line. Their line is, “Sue has done something a bit silly, but fair enough after working with Boris, and anyway it was her job to stop these Tory maniacs getting their way.”
It is human nature to assume that your views are objective, whereas those of your opponents are dogmatic. If you are part of the Civil Service-Blairite-BBC dinner party network, you start seeing certain positions as mainstream, sensible and, yes, neutral.
The idea, for example, that government intervention does more good than harm. The idea that gender roles are a social construct. The idea that sovereignty is outdated (except when, as in Northern Ireland, it is asserted by the EU).
So when a civil servant openly avows her loyalty to a party that shares these assumptions, you don’t really see it as bias. Had she gone to work for, say, Richard Tice of the Reform Party, you might see things differently.
We happen to have heard of Sue Gray. But there are many such officials who are not household names. Believing themselves to be disinterested, they have taken to frustrating what they see as ideological ministerial demands. Their bias is institutional, and runs across every government department.
The Treasury systematically underplays the secondary or dynamic effects of tax cuts – that is, the way in which a lower tax rate can encourage more economic activity and so end up generating higher revenues. The Home Office hates repatriating illegal immigrants: its civil servants, through their trade union, went so far as to challenge the Government’s deportation policy in court.
The Education Department does not want a knowledge-based curriculum. The Department of International Trade dislikes cutting tariffs. The Business Department wants to keep Brussels-era regulations. And, of course, every ministry subordinates its notional function to the two ruling ideas of our age, namely identity politics and net zero.
For the past week, the pages of the Telegraph have been filled with revelations about the lockdowns. They cast light on Whitehall’s consistent over-reaction: forecasts of future infections were overly pessimistic, and there was a terrifying readiness to seize draconian powers on the flimsiest of excuses. Some politicians emerge badly, especially Matt Hancock.
But what one glimpses also is the way in which official Britain – the highly paid but anonymous advisers, officials and quangocrats – messed everything up, consistently over-rating the danger, consistently under-performing when it came to testing, procurement and other responses.
It was officials who opposed dealing with the issue under the Civil Contingencies Act, thereby necessitating legislation, putting the devolved jurisdictions in charge and sparking (as we now see from the leaked WhatsApp messages) a race among the four administrations to be as authoritarian as possible.
The one success story was delivered by Kate Bingham, brought in from the outside, who gave us the world’s best vaccine rollout. Yet her appointment was howled down as cronyism by those who have barely raised an eyebrow at Gray’s behaviour. Why? Because she was the wife of a Conservative MP, and Tories are seen as doctrinaire, Leftists as neutral.
It is too late to do anything about it. The Conservatives might have reduced the size of the Civil Service. They might have undone some of the equalities and climate legislation which officials use as their excuse to defy ministers. They might have allowed Secretaries of State to appoint their own people – their own speech writers, heads of office, chief strategists and press spokesmen, if no one else.
How, after all, can any minister be confident that they are not dealing with another Gray? Sadly, they let the moment pass. It is their loss; and Britain’s.

The SNP is tearing itself apart – and it’s delicious to watch​

The race to replace Nicola Sturgeon has descended into farce, with contenders behaving like crazed extras in a Braveheart battle scene
CAMILLA TOMINEY
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
4 March 2023 • 9:00am
Camilla Tominey



For years and years they have pretended to be a united front, undivided in their desire for an independent Scotland.
Yet within days of Nicola Sturgeon announcing her retirement from the “brutality” of political life, the Scottish National Party (SNP) once again appears to be on the brink of consuming itself.
The leadership race has descended into a sort of Saltire-draped farce, with the key contenders behaving like crazed extras in one of Braveheart’s battle scenes.
First Kate Forbes found her leadership campaign almost cancelled before it had even begun after colleagues disowned the Bible-believing Christian over her views on same-sex marriage.
Forbes had received endorsements from MSPs including Tom Arthur, Richard Lochhead and Claire Haughey – who all promptly withdrew their support when Forbes admitted that she would not have voted in favour of equal marriage, had she been an MSP at the time of the vote. She had never made any secret of her religious beliefs, but they shafted her regardless.
Forbes’s main rival Humza Yousaf was similarly undermined by fellow Scots Nats who accused him of dodging the key final vote on the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill that went through Holyrood in February 2014.
Alex Neil, the former Scottish health secretary, claimed that Scottish government business was organised in such a way that his former colleague had an “excuse” to miss the vote following pressure from his mosque.
On Thursday, Alex Salmond, the ex-SNP leader, doubled down on the claim. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Add to that the bonkers plan of Ash Regan (the “Salmond puppet”) for Scotland to adopt a new currency “within months” of independence, and the SNP is fast resembling a Dundee fruitcake.
Turning the circular firing squad onto Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, who still faces questions over a £100,000 loan to the party, Ms Regan suggested this week that Mr Murrell’s position as SNP chief executive was a “clear conflict of interest”.
Little wonder, then, that John Swinney, Sturgeon’s deputy, has now decided to step down, having failed to back any of the three main leadership contenders.
So much for Scottish solidarity.

God Bless Us! Every one!
 
Back
Top