DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus IRS whistleblower says he was told not to pursue leads involving President Biden

I never knew standing against a fascist movement was considered hate. Guess I’m full of hate then. Just saying.

Sen. Grassley releases full FBI memo with unverified claims about Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley released an unclassified document Thursday that Republicans claim is significant in their investigation of Hunter Biden as they delve into the financial affairs of the president and his son, and revive previously debunked claims of wrongdoing.

Grassley of Iowa has been working alongside House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., as Republicans deepen their probe of President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, ahead of the 2024 election. Comer had issued a subpoena for the document from the FBI.

While lawmakers on the Oversight Committee have already been able to partly review the information, this is the first time the full document — which contains raw, unverified information — is being made public. Called an FD-1023 form, it involves claims a confidential informant made in 2020 about Hunter Biden’s alleged business dealings when he served on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Top Republicans have acknowledged they cannot confirm whether the information is true.

“The American people can now read this document for themselves,” Grassley said.

The document adds to information that had widely aired during Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, which involved Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to dig up dirt on the Bidens ahead of the 2020 election. It was also the subject of a subsequent Department of Justice review that Trump’s Attorney General William Barr launched in 2020 and closed later that year.

Grassley’s office said the FBI told the senator the document was related to an ongoing matter.

White House spokesman Ian Sams said Thursday, “It is remarkable that congressional Republicans, in their eagerness to go after President Biden regardless of the truth, continue to push claims that have been debunked for years.”

“These claims have reportedly been scrutinized by the Trump Justice Department, a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, and a full impeachment trial of the former President that centered on these very issues, and over and over again, they have been found to lack credibility,” he said. “It’s clear that congressional Republicans are dead-set on playing shameless, dishonest politics and refuse to let truth get in the way.”

In the four-page document, the confidential informant claims to have been involved in various meetings some years earlier, in 2015 or 2016, with officials from the Burisma energy company looking to do business in the United States. The informant claims being told by Burisma officials about their relationship and dealings with Hunter Biden.

One company official said they kept Hunter Biden on the Burisma board because they believed through “his dad” it could protect them from all kinds of problems, the informant claimed.

In another instance, a top company official suggested payment of $5 million to each of the Bidens as the company sought to have Ukraine’s prosecutor general at the time, Viktor Shokin, removed from office, according to the document.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, said after lawmakers reviewed a redacted document in June, “Congress thoroughly reviewed and debunked” similar allegations that Giuliani had made.

“As the FBI explained, the allegations were also thoroughly investigated by Donald Trump’s own Justice Department,” Raskin wrote. That assessment was closed in August 2020 after eight months of investigative efforts, he said, and “found insufficient evidence” to warrant further investigation.

But Comer said Thursday: “The American people must be able to read this record for themselves. I thank Senator Grassley for providing much needed transparency.”

Grassley said while the FBI had released a redacted version to lawmakers, he was able to provide a fuller document because whistleblowers made it available to him.

Comer’s panel held a hearing this week with two Internal Review Service whistleblowers who have claimed Justice Department interference as they tried to probe Hunter Biden’s financial affairs. They said they were unaware of the document.

The Justice Department has denied the whistleblower claims. Department policy has long told prosecutors to take care when bringing charges with political overtones so close to an election.

A recovering addict, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty last month to misdemeanor charges over his finances after years of failing to pay taxes. Republicans have denounced the agreement with federal prosecutors as a “sweetheart deal.”

The top prosecutor in the case, U.S. Attorney David Weiss in Delaware, has said he is willing to testify before the House panel once he is legally able to share information with Congress without violating the longstanding department policy of discussing an ongoing investigation.

Testimony from Justice Department officials could come after Hunter Biden appears for his plea hearing next week.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...4258_kZ6gjSJSvRCHhSChN96KpF5ZjVBW8sa8dus

Good, then prosecute them if you can. Until then, it’s nothing but blah blah blah to distract from Trumps BS, the true enemy of the state.

Oversight Dems argue GOP overlooked information undercutting Biden allegation

A Ukrainian oligarch who ran the energy company that hired Hunter Biden to serve on its board told associates of Rudy Giuliani that Burisma never had any contacts with then-Vice President Biden while his son worked at the company.

The conversation with Mykola Zlochevsky, part of the package of information received by lawmakers during former President Trump’s first impeachment, was highlighted by the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee as evidence undercutting a GOP-led probe into an alleged bribery scheme.

“Mr. Zlochevsky’s statements are just one of the many that have debunked the corruption allegations against President Biden that were first leveled by Rudy Giuliani and have been reviewed by former President Trump’s own Justice Department,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote in a letter to House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.).

The clash between the panel’s two parties rests on a series of unverified tips.

Under the Trump administration, the FBI and Justice Department were unable to corroborate a tip from a confidential source relaying a conversation heard secondhand that alleged Biden, while vice president, accepted a bribe. Comer has based much of his investigation on this tip, memorized in a FD-1023 form used by the FBI to document such interactions.

Raskin’s letter resurfaces a conversation with Zlochevsky — one arranged through a series of Giuliani associates in which the oligarch speaks of his decision to hire Hunter Biden.

“No one from Burisma ever had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him during Hunter Biden’s engagement,” Zlochevsky says in the exchange, which appears to be with Vitaly Pruss, whom the letter describes as “another long-time associate of Mr. Giuliani who was a close friend of Mr. Zlochevsky.”

However, the conversation was turned over to Giuliani by Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian who was later convicted of making illegal campaign contributions to former President Trump.

Zlochevsky also answered “no” when asked if then-Vice President Biden or his staff “assisted you or your company in any way with business deals or meetings with world leaders or any other assistance.”

Raskin argues the information shows that Zlochevsky “squarely rebutted” allegations that are at the core of the GOP probe.

“As part of the impeachment inquiry against then-President Trump, Congress learned that Mr. Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian oligarch and the owner of Burisma, whom Republican Committee Members appear to have identified as the source of the allegations memorialized in the Form FD-1023, squarely rebutted these allegations in 2019,” he wrote.

“Despite being interviewed as part of a campaign by Mr. Giuliani and his proxies in 2019 and 2020 to procure damaging information about the Biden family, Mr. Zlochevsky explicitly and unequivocally denied those allegations.”

Raskin, however, also pointed to comments from Trump-era Attorney General Bill Barr that there “are a lot of agendas in the Ukraine, there are a lot of cross-currents, and we can’t take anything we receive from the Ukraine at face value.”

Comer has called on the FBI to release the form that lawmakers reviewed in a secure location weeks ago.

“If Ranking Member Raskin thinks there is nothing to the FD-1023 form, then he should join us in calling on the FBI to make it public,” Comer said.

“This unclassified record stands on its own and memorializes a confidential human source’s conversations with a Burisma executive dating back to 2015. The Burisma executive claims then-Vice President Biden solicited and received a $5 million bribe in exchange for certain actions.”

In the conversation, Zlochevsky also says that they never asked Hunter Biden to make any outreach to the State Department.

“We never approved or asked him to conduct those meetings on behalf of Burisma,” he says.

Still, he makes clear that Hunter Biden’s hiring, as well as that of his former business partner Devon Archer, was part of an effort to help strengthen ties between Burisma and the international community.

“We wanted to [b]uild Burisma as international company. It was very important to have strong board. So when we review resumes of biden and archer they both had great resumes. We also thought it would help in Ukraine to have strong international board figures with great relationships in the United States and Europe,” Zlochevsky says.

“We believe it was worth it. It had it own advantages and disadvantages. But it general we believe our company benefited greatly from this relationship.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/407367...formation-undercutting-biden-allegation/

FBI ‘expressly’ opposed GOP release of unverified Biden tip

House Oversight Committee Republicans were admonished by the FBI several times ahead of taking the action the bureau warned against — publicly releasing unverified information gained through a confidential informant.

The tip from the source — memorialized in an FD-1023 form — was never corroborated by the FBI, but it was nonetheless put into the public sphere Thursday as Republicans released what they see as central evidence into whether then-Vice President Biden accepted a bribe.

The release comes after committee members were told “the FBI expressly does not consent to the materials’ public disclosure or further dissemination” and that “the contents of the materials should not be discussed or shared in any form with anyone beyond Members and staff,” according to a disclaimer obtained by The Hill presented to lawmakers before viewing the form.

In the form, the source relays conversations with Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter Biden once served on the board.

While Zlochevsky told the informant he paid money to both Bidens, he later purportedly refuted that claim in information provided to Congress during former President Trump’s first impeachment. The White House has also denied in full any claims of wrongdoing.

The release of the information has infuriated the FBI, which hesitated to share the document over concerns it would be improperly handled and risk compromising their source.

“Throughout the FBI’s engagements with Congress, we have been guided by our obligation to protect the physical safety of confidential human sources and the integrity of sensitive investigations. We have repeatedly explained to Congress, in correspondence and in briefings, how critical it is to keep this source information confidential,” the FBI said in a Thursday statement.

“The safeguards the FBI placed on the production of this information are necessary to protect the safety of confidential sources and the integrity of sensitive investigations,” the statement said. “Today’s release of the 1023 — at a minimum — unnecessarily risks the safety of a confidential source.”

The bureau was more explicit in its private correspondence with House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), obtained by The Hill on Thursday.

A June 9 letter to Comer came the day after the full committee was permitted to review the document in the Capitol’s sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF), saying members ignored explicit instructions by FBI briefers.

“The Committee and its Members were specifically told that ‘wider distribution could pose a risk of physical harm to FBI sources or others.’ The full text of this admonishment is included below for your reference. We are concerned that Members disregarded the Committee’s agreement that information from the document should not be further disclosed. Several Committee Members publicized specific details regarding their recollection of confidential source reporting purportedly referenced in the document,” the bureau wrote in the letter.

“In addition, we are concerned that several Members insisted upon taking notes during the in camera review—even after being reminded of the restriction on notetaking by FBI employees present.”

Concerns over how the information would be handled were clear from two May letters from the FBI as the bureau wrangled with lawmakers on how to comply with a subpoena for the document.

Both stressed the need to protect confidential sources — something they also note is key for the ability of the FBI to continue to get information.

The agreement to allow Comer to review, but not take, the document came as he threatened to hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress.

Comer on Thursday defended the release, calling the information part of the FBI’s “record.”

“In the FBI’s record, the Burisma executive claims that he didn’t pay the ‘big guy’ directly but that he used several bank accounts to conceal the money. That sounds an awful lot like how the Bidens conduct business: using multiple bank accounts to hide the source and total amount of the money,” he said in a statement.

But Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the committee, blasted Republicans for releasing the unverified tip with little other context.

“Releasing this document in isolation from explanatory context is another transparently desperate attempt by Committee Republicans to revive the aging and debunked Giuliani-framed conspiracy theories and to distract from their continuing failure to produce any actual evidence of wrongdoing by the President — even at the cost of endangering the safety of FBI sources,” he said in a statement.

https://thehill.com/policy/national...dZNdrHkSGGojOL1gXc4oA3HomIxqRJGctVsr111s

This is how things turn out when you just throw out fake, unvarified GOP talking points without looking at any of the facts or context. Hopefully this will help you from making the same mistakes moving forward. You're welcome.

Not that it really matters, but I was watching one of those "man on the Streets" type interview things on the net.

The interviewer was asking obvious Trump Supporters if they felt Hunter Biden should be impeached.. I was shocked that ANYONE would say yes. But they were adamant about it.

Just something funny....,

Just goes to show that dumbasses are everywhere. You can pull up those type of clips all over the internet.

Yes, there are idiots everywhere (thanks to dumbing down policies) but ESPECIALLY on the far right. Just look for the red hat, under it will be an idiot.

Oh yeah, thats the one...

Cracks me up.

Yeah, true enough.

If you check, you'll find that most of those are Trump supporters. What's the say?

So, the hunter biden plea deal fell through?

Indeed. It was a sham deal.

The problem is this board has several libs who post up every article they can find and a few others who agree with everything they say. Cool. That's their right.

Unfortunately, they don't take the time to see what is going on in this country.

Yes, it seems a judge recognized that someone shouldn't be granted blanket immunity during an ongoing investigation. The DOJ played dumb as if they didn't know what was in the plea deal (wink, wink). I guess that explains why they refused to release the written agreement beforehand.

Good thing there was a real judge at the bench that understood her place in this scam... and refused to be a part in it. Of course, the lib media ignores everything that stinks about the charade, ignores the facts, and just continually points out that she was a Trump appointee.

Yep she’s a Trump appointee. Lol

Ain’t no “guessing” about it.

You don't understand, so there is no sense in paying attention to your emotional comments.

Yes, it's all Democrats that are emotional. Have you ever watched Gym Jordan or Ted Cruz speak? They could have had a career as soap opera actors. And then there's the "I'ma gonna stop buying Bud Light!" crowd. Talk about emotions. Shooting 12 packs of Bud Light with an AR-15? You've lost the emotions argument before you ever started.

The problem is ubiquitous across the spectrum from my perspective. I’ve seen some really nasty and radical things said from multiple angles.

I think the worst I’ve seen of what you’re talking about though resulted in the Thanks Y’all threads that occurred a while ago. For the other side, the problematic patterns are more boiled down to individual posters than a concentrated thread.

The sad thing is you see snippets of great conversations from time to time, but they ultimately devolve to more powerful reptilian instincts. Outrage porn.

I found it rather odd that he railed against "posting articles". Then you get some ambiguous comment about "what's really going on" with no explanation to follow. But of course he has given the same explanation repeatedly. Everyone who doesn't share his politics is a communist and communists are trying to take over America. Maybe that's what he meant by "what's really going on"?

I don't care what you guys all say, I'm NOT VOTING FOR HUNTER BIDEN! In fact, I'm going to a MAGA Rally later where the big topic of discussion is impeaching HUNTER BIDEN!



Not sure why the Purple font isn't working.. Bummer

When you're desperate to defend trump, even what Biden's kid did is fair game. But just like them I would refuse to vote for Hunter Biden.

Well, I'm glad you aren't voting for hunter. Because you can't.

Look, I asked a question.

It does seem to me that maybe this hunter story has something to do with his dad, don't you think?

Thinking.... I recommend it.

The only actual evidence of that anyone seems to have is a witness set to appear Monday who is a former business partner of Hunters. A guy who was convicted of fraud in 2018. Sounds credible to me, right?

Cool. Why don't you try it?

I'm not the one claiming some man convicted of felony fraud is some kind of credible witness.

Hunter's plea deal fell through. Period. Why? Because the judge didn't see the point of offering complete immunity to him for the rest of his life.

As was pointed out for anyone who bothered to look, the reason the judge rejected that plea is because the prosecutors and Hunter's attorney's disagreed on what the wording in the plea deal meant. And she herself wasn't clear on what the wording meant. She questioned the scope of it based on the way it was worded. That's why she gave both parties 30 days to clarify the language of the plea agreement.

Say it with me: Hunter's plea bargain fell through because a judge ruled it insane.

You just keep making BS up and expect people to buy into it.

What part of what I stated is wrong?

Did you bother to read her ruling? If you did you know better. If you didn't I'm not going to do your homework for you, again.

Once again, she wants the plea deal clarified because it could be taken, as worded, as blank immunity. When they are going to revisit something in 30 days, it didn't "fall through". It means it has been continued and is yet to be determined.

It fell through.

You might wish to wait until the outcome to make such a claim. But of course that wouldn't be making claims before we see what happens. I get it.

From the more detailed accounts Biden wanted the plea deal to be the end of the saga. A future GOP led DOJ could want to reopen the case for a second swing at Hunter. That is a plausible scenario IMO. The language was to put a barrier in place so a judge would have to authorize a reopening. That is a problem because the system does not work that way. The judge did not lie the language and the parties will have to address the issue in a revised deal, or Biden will have to drop the condition in a new plea deal.

Well, that deal fell through. That was the "deal' presented to the judge. A judge can refuse to accept any deal presented to them. The DA and defense also have the prerogative to try to come to a new deal.

As far as I am aware, there are no limits on the number of deals that can be presented to the judge. It might tick off the judge if he/she starts to feel that that DA and defense team are working for the same goal, which might be the case here. In a traditional manner, the DA and Defense counsel aren't working for the same result.

The problem is the Federal prosecutors are notorious for not wanting cases adjudicated. You see deals all the time, but it is usually face these counts and face 30 hard years in prison, or plea to this and get out in 6 years. The Feds bully their way in to plea deals. Even if you are totally innocent you just might not want to roll those dice and agree to the lesser charge. All of us would have to pause and really think about things.

That is why is situation doesn't look right. This doesn't match the M.O.

They tried to sneak this one through, but it didn't get past the judge. She wasn't going to grant blanket immunity for things that might be sitting in the weeds at the moment.

So this whistle blower thing? Or are we impeaching Hunter here now?

Actually to a great extent they are working towards the same goal. That goal is to arrive at a plea agreement that both parties find acceptable to avoid a trial. What you seem to be trying to suggest is that David Weiss, the prosecutor in this case who was appointed by Trump, is some operative working hand and hand with Hunter Biden's attorney to sneak one past the judge. You realize that trying to make an inference that a trump appointed prosecutor is somehow trying to collude with Hunter's attorney's doesn't make any sense, right?

But then it seems there's a lot of people trying to to make that giant leap and you are not alone.

Is that really a "giant leap", Pit?

The dude was appointed by Trump after being endorsed by several democrats. He was kept by the Biden administration while the DOJ pressured most Trump-appointed U.S. attorneys to resign... specifically because of the Biden probe.

Furthermore, whistleblowers testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee that Weiss was "constantly hamstrung, limited, and marginalized by DOJ officials as well as other U.S. Attorneys." They testified that Weiss had requested to have special counsel authority, but was denied.

Really, I don't see how being a Trump appointee has anything to do with the subject at hand.

Yeah it is a leap. It's all the rage however. I mean look at Christopher Wray as an example. Trump hand picked him to be the FBI director. You see, not every president just goes around firing people because the former president appointed them. Yet now the rallying cry is that the FBI has been weaponized. That means that a hand picked trump appointee must now be some democratic operative as well. Just like when Trump's hand picked AG Bill Barr, after reviewing the election fraud claims said there was no mass election fraud. He too was attacked for it. When looking at all of that, and there is certainly more, it seems that even the people trump picked and appointed get attacked as somehow now working with democrats when they do something that republicans don't like or oppose.

I believe if we were talking about an isolated event here it would be worthy of discussion. But it's an obvious and blatant trend that's been going on for some time now.

BTW- Weiss has denied the claims that this is political and made it plain he "was never refused authority to bring charges anywhere in the country, refuting two key allegations from IRS whistleblowers."

US attorney leading Hunter Biden probe refutes whistleblowers’ politicization claims

https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/10/poli...stleblower-claim-hunter-biden/index.html