╌>

Prosecutors Think They Have Evidence to Charge Hunter Biden: Report

  
Via:  John Russell  •  2 years ago  •  54 comments

By:   Sonam Sheth (Business Insider)

Prosecutors Think They Have Evidence to Charge Hunter Biden: Report
Investigators believe they can charge Hunter Biden with financial crimes and making a false statement linked to a gun purchase, WaPo reported.

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Hunter Biden. Paul Morigi/Getty Images for World Food Program USA Redeem now

  • Prosecutors think they have enough evidence to bring a criminal case against Hunter Biden.
  • The Washington Post reported that they believe they can charge Biden with tax crimes.
  • Investigators also think they can indict the younger Biden for making a false statement linked to a gun purchase.

Federal prosecutors believe they have enough evidence to charge President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, with financial crimes and false statements, The Washington Post reported, citing people familiar with the case.

The younger Biden first revealed the existence of the federal investigation into him in December 2020, saying in a statement that prosecutors were looking into his taxes.

"I learned yesterday for the first time that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel, also yesterday, that they are investigating my tax affairs," the statement said. "I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors."

The Post reported Thursday that investigators also think they have enough evidence to charge Hunter Biden with making a false statement related to a gun purchase. The US attorney in Delaware will now decide whether to move forward with a criminal case.

CNN reported that prosecutors first started investigating Hunter Biden's taxes in 2018 but temporarily halted the probe because of Justice Department rules barring prosecutors from taking actions that could influence the outcome of an election.

An indictment against Hunter Biden would mark the biggest test yet of the president's pledge to restore independence and public trust in the Justice Department.

This story is breaking. Check back for updates.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 years ago

www.washingtonpost.com   /national-security/2022/10/06/hunter-biden-tax-gun-charges/

Federal agents see chargeable tax, gun-purchase case against Hunter Biden

Devlin Barrett, Perry Stein 8-10 minutes   10/6/2022


Federal agents investigating President Biden’s son Hunter have gathered what they believe is sufficient evidence to charge him with tax crimes and a false statement related to a gun purchase, according to people familiar with the case. The next step   is for the U.S. Attorney in Delaware, a Trump administration holdover, to decide on whether to file such charges, these people said.

The   investigation into Hunter Biden   began in 2018, and became a central focus for then-president Donald Trump during his unsuccessful 2020 reelection effort. Initially, the investigation centered around Hunter Biden’s finances related to   overseas business ties and consulting work . Over time, investigators with multiple agencies focused closely on whether he did not report all of his income, and whether he lied on gun purchase paperwork in 2018, according to the people familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing case.

Agents determined months ago they had assembled a viable criminal case against the younger Biden. But it is ultimately up to prosecutors at the Justice Department, not agents, to decide whether to file charges in cases where prosecutors believe the evidence is strong enough to lead to a likely conviction at trial.

Given the intense political interest in a criminal probe involving the son of a sitting president, Attorney General Merrick Garland has made clear that the U.S. Attorney in Delaware, David C. Weiss, who was nominated by Trump in late 2017, is supervising the case.

Garland has vowed there will be no political or otherwise improper interference in the Hunter Biden case, and has not moved to push Weiss to make a decision, the people familiar with the matter said. It is not uncommon for Justice Department investigations to take years to finish.

A spokeswoman for Weiss declined to comment, as did spokespeople for the Justice Department, and the FBI and the IRS, the two primary investigative agencies.

Asked about the case, Chris Clark, a lawyer for Hunter Biden, accused investigators of leaking information. “It is a federal felony for a federal agent to leak information about a Grand Jury investigation such as this one,” Clark said in a written statement. "Any agent you cite as a source in your article apparently has committed such a felony. We expect the Department of Justice will diligently investigate and prosecute such bad actors. As is proper and legally required, we believe the prosecutors in this case are diligently and thoroughly weighing not just evidence provided by agents, but also all the other witnesses in this case, including witnesses for the defense. That is the job of the prosecutors. They should not be pressured, rushed, or criticized for doing their job.”

Any charging decision involving the Biden case is especially fraught because Trump and his allies have made accusations of corruption in Hunter Biden’s business dealings a key line of attack against Democrats, both before and after the 2020 presidential race. At the height of the election campaign, Trump allies revealed that a Delaware computer shop owner had turned over to the FBI a laptop that had apparently belonged to Hunter Biden. Trump and others argued the data on the laptop showed evidence of unethical and possible illegal business deals; Joe Biden and his supporters denounced the efforts as a smear.

In March,   The Washington Post reported that two computer security experts   had reviewed thousands of the emails purportedly from Hunter Biden’s computer and found they were authentic communications, based on cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies. It could not be determined for this article whether the laptop and its contents were useful in the Justice Department investigation.

The Biden probe has proceeded with relatively little fanfare in recent months amid the much larger and more public Justice Department and FBI investigation into whether Trump mishandled classified material at Mar-a-Lago — and a separate federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.   Trump and his allies   have sharply criticized federal law enforcement   over both those cases.

Questions about the younger Biden’s foreign business ventures have long dogged his father’s political life. Trump and his GOP allies specifically cite as ethical conflicts Hunter Biden’s past work for a Ukrainian gas company while his father was vice president, as well as his China-related business affairs. In a July 2019 phone call, Trump urged Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate both Joe and Hunter Biden — part of a pressure campaign that led to the first of Trump’s two impeachment trials in Congress.

In December 2020 federal agents sought to interview the younger Biden, leading him to   publicly acknowledge   that he was under investigation. “I take this matter very seriously but I am confident that a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate that I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors,” Hunter Biden said in a statement at that time.

Clark, Hunter Biden’s lawyer, said in his statement Thursday that he has “had no contact whatsoever with any federal investigative agent. Therefore, a rendition of the case from such an ‘agent’ is inherently biased, one-sided, and inaccurate. It is regrettable that law enforcement agents appear to be violating the law to prejudice a case against a person who is a target simply because of his family name.

Republicans have pressed the Biden administration to appoint a special counsel to take over the investigation into the president’s son, arguing the step was needed to ensure public confidence in the probe’s outcome. Under Justice Department regulations, any special counsel would still answer to the attorney general, however. Garland chose not to make such an appointment, instead keeping the case with Weiss, whose previous career as a federal prosecutor stretches back decades and includes violent crime and white-collar cases.

In the early days of the Biden administration,   a Justice Department official said   removing Weiss as U.S. Attorney as he was overseeing the Hunter Biden case would likely spark significant political backlash.

In April, after White House chief of staff Ron Klain said Biden “is confident that his son didn’t break the law,” Garland was asked at a Senate hearing about how the Justice Department is handling the case.

Weiss “is in charge of that investigation. There will not be interference of any political or improper kind,” Garland answered. “We put the investigation in the hands of a Trump appointee from the previous administration.”

The primary focus of the tax investigation has been whether Hunter Biden did not declare income related to his various business ventures, including overseas. The gun paperwork part of the investigation stems from 2018, a time period in which Hunter Biden, by his own account, was smoking crack cocaine.

In October of that year, Biden purchased a handgun, filling out a federal form in which he allegedly answered “no” to the question whether he was “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

According to   a book Hunter Biden later wrote   about his struggles with substance abuse, he was using drugs heavily that year.

Prosecutions for false statements on   gun-purchase forms are relatively rare, but they do happen. In the fiscal year that Hunter Biden purchased that handgun,   Justice Department records   show prosecutors received 478 referrals for lying on the forms. Of those, charges were filed in 298 cases, or about 60 percent of the time.

Federal agents refer to such cases as “lying and buying.” Historically, prosecutors have significant discretion to decide which ones are worth federal resources.

“A prosecutor can say they have bigger fish to catch, or they can decide to seek a deal,” said Joseph G. Green, a retired agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “As agents, we would always include as many charges as we could, but it’s ultimately up to the prosecutor to decide which ones they will bring.”

Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 years ago

This is the exclusive that only the Washington Post has. You mean Hunter Biden who made millions from influence peddling, may only be charged with Tax violations or a gun purchase?

Here is the most important line:

“A prosecutor can say they have bigger fish to catch, or they can decide to seek a deal,” said Joseph G. Green, a retired agent from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. “As agents, we would always include as many charges as we could, but it’s ultimately up to the prosecutor to decide which ones they will bring.”

Hunter can plead this out and walk away.  Yet another miscarriage of justice by the left.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2  Texan1211    2 years ago
  • Prosecutors think they have enough evidence to bring a criminal case against Hunter Biden.
  • The Washington Post reported that they believe they can charge Biden with tax crimes.
  • Investigators also think they can indict the younger Biden for making a false statement linked to a gun purchase.

As many non-Democrats have long suspected.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2    2 years ago
As many non-Democrats have long suspected.

Really?  I saw no mention of his laptop or Ukraine.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1    2 years ago
Really? 

yes.

I saw no mention of his laptop or Ukraine.

Oh, just pretend you did anyway.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1    2 years ago
I saw no mention of his laptop or Ukraine.

Neither did anybody else.  Yet here you are.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1    2 years ago
I saw no mention of his laptop or Ukraine.

It looks like those FBI whistleblowers were right.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @2    2 years ago

Those are lesser crimes.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  seeder  JohnRussell    2 years ago

Its interesting that the seeded article is incorrect. Whether that is deliberate or not is unknown. 

The Washington Post article DOES NOT say that prosecutors have determined there is enough evidence to charge Hunter Biden with anything, it is "federal investigators" that have said that.  Biden's lawyer is calling for the leaking agents to be prosecuted. 

I wonder why Business Insider got this story wrong. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 years ago
Its interesting that the seeded article is incorrect.

it's interesting that you provided nothing as to why you THINK it's wrong.

I wonder why Business Insider got this story wrong. 

And yet here you are seeding it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1    2 years ago

Is there something wrong with you?

The Business Insider article which was seeded refers to a Washington Post story as the source for saying prosecutors say they have evidence to charge Hunter Biden. 

Read the Washington Post article. It doesnt say that. It says that "agents" say there is enough evidence.  There is a big difference between the two. 

This may have been leaked by MAGA leaning FBI agents who wanted this out prior to the election. 

Doesnt mean Biden is innocent, or guilty, but the leak of this story is not from the prosecutors. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    2 years ago

Why is this a leak? If the investigators think they have enough, what's the problem with getting it out there? If it WERE the prosecutors telling the story prior to issuing indictments, that would be a different story.

And I know you say the lawyer wants "the leaking agents to be prosecuted" but why?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    2 years ago
Read the Washington Post article.

You didn't seed the Washington Post article.  Maybe seed the correct article and we'll read it.

This may have been leaked by MAGA leaning FBI agents who wanted this out prior to the election.

I thought you didn't do the conspiracy theory thing.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.2    2 years ago

Hunter Bidens lawyer says it is illegal for law enforcement to leak information gathered from a grand jury. 

Take it up with him. 

I find it very curious that agents feel empowered to make this call AT THIS TIME. 

Everyone thought the Secret Service was clean until it came out they were infiltrated by MAGA who were erasing their phones. 

You never know. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.3    2 years ago
You didn't seed the Washington Post article.  Maybe seed the correct article and we'll read it.

Read the first comment and then you will have read the Washington Post article. 

I had already seeded the BI article before I realized it was inaccurate in relation to the Washington Post article. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    2 years ago
Hunter Bidens lawyer says it is illegal for law enforcement to leak information gathered from a grand jury. 

Oh, then maybe Hunter will walk like Bill Ayers and Daniel Ellsberg.  It seems that only lefties walk if the FBI or DOJ does somehing wrong.

I don't think that's how this goes. I think this thing is going to come to an end with Hunter paying a fine. This is to clear the slate before the Republicans take over congress and they can hammer away at Hunter and the FBI.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    2 years ago

I read the seeded article.  Now if you fucked that up, that's on you.  Maybe you should correct it.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.7    2 years ago

This can only be about one thing: the Republicans getting the gavels next year. That investigation has been going on for 4 years. About 20 FBI whistleblowers said that Hunter is being protected by the bureau. They want to bring this thing to an end in a way that won't hurt Hunter.

As Joe said just the other day "nobody fucks with the Bidens."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.7    2 years ago

I fucked up? There is something wrong with you. I posted both articles. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.10  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    2 years ago
This may have been leaked by MAGA leaning FBI agents who wanted this out prior to the election. 

Oh the irony of your statement after years worth of FBI and DOJ leaks on Trump investigations.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.9    2 years ago

So you intentionally seeded one article the distract your own article.  So, yes.  You fucked up.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.8    2 years ago

all that to protect a crackhead and incompetence in the WH.  

As Joe said just the other day "nobody fucks with the Bidens."

I thought that was hilarious coming from somebody who can't put together a coherent sentence.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 years ago
I wonder why Business Insider got this story wrong.

Perhaps it is the lean difference between the two. Here are two examples of that very theory on another story from a while back.............

Once it came to a stop, the girl, wearing a tactical helmet and vest, got out and ran toward deputies amid a hail of gunfire, police said, Authorities are investigating whether she was shot by deputies or her father, or both.

And this from Salon who jumped on the story from the "We Hate Cops" point of view that needed correction.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story stated that kidnapping victim Savannah Graziano was shot and killed by police when running toward them seeking protection. Savannah Graziano's reason for running to the police has not been confirmed.

All depends on ones slant...............................

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2    2 years ago
All depends on ones slant...............................

Only if you think there is no difference between prosecutors and FBI agents. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    2 years ago

I was talking about the differences in the slant of the reporting media sources comparing how the same stories are told one way out of the blocks 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  seeder  JohnRussell    2 years ago

How much does this leak have to do with the coming election? 

We already know there are a lot of MAGA in the FBI. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 years ago
How much does this leak have to do with the coming election? 

Very little. Btw, when has the Washington Post ever leaked a story to hurt democrats?


We already know there are a lot of MAGA in the FBI.

Projection at its worst!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 years ago

LOL. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    2 years ago

The election that was effected was the one where the laptop story was quashed

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 years ago

The Washington Post are not the leakers, the FBI agents are.

The Washington Post has printed many stories unfavorable to Democrats. The Hillary emails and all the Benghazi bullshit come immediately to mind. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    2 years ago

Whoever leaked it, the prognosis is fairly simple. Hunter won't be charged with anything before the election, but immediately after he will get charged with something minor, sauch as a tax violation or an illegal gun purchase. That will end the case before the Republicans take over the committees next year.

Based on the way Biden and the left have abused the law, that is exactly where this is going.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 years ago
"We already know there are a lot of MAGA in the FBI."

TRUTH

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    2 years ago
"The election that was effected was the one where the laptop story was quashed"

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 years ago
We already know there are a lot of MAGA in the FBI.

Thought you didn't do the whole conspiracy theory thing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2    2 years ago
Thought you didn't do the whole conspiracy theory thing.

Perhaps it is just a matter of convenience?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.1    2 years ago

Like we are supposed to believe the FBI, who have favored the Democrats for the past 7 years, suddenly are looking into the President's crackhead kid.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.2    2 years ago

Funny how it all worked out. Some people only got investigated by people who hate them and the same investigators get to investigate their own.

Why do I feel like somethings missing?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    2 years ago

It is kind of odd that when it comes to the opposition, the FBI has a suspect but no crime.  But when it comes to investigating their own, the FBI works like the Keystone Cops.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @4    2 years ago

Would you stop already!

Where the hell were you for the last six years when there was nothing but massive leaks from the FBI and DOJ on Trump investigations? Republicans didn't weaponize the DOJ and FBI; that was the Democrats! 

You are bitching about 50 something FBI and DOJ whistleblowers coming forward to report on their departments' operating procedures being violated. Many of those coming forward aren't even Republicans and didn't vote for Trump! But they are being punished by the FBI and DOJ in violation of the law!

We already know there are a lot of MAGA in the FBI. 

What a massive lie!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @4.3    2 years ago

How Rogue Agents in the FBI’s NY Field Office Helped Elect Trump

Comey testified that agents were leaking information about Clinton’s emails to Rudy Giuliani.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.1    2 years ago

According an  Office of the Inspector General  report released Thursday, Comey violated DOJ and FBI policies, as well as the FBI's employment agreement, by keeping copies of four of his memos in a personal safe and asking a law professor friend to make one memo public after Trump fired him in May 2017.


 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.3.4  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3.2    2 years ago

Isn't funny how Democrats forget it was Comey himself that helped torpedo Hillary. He was the one that announced he reopened the investigation after classified documents were found on Weiner's pad. 

In a note to congressional committee chairs,  FBI director James Comey  said that the FBI had discovered additional emails relevant to the investigation into Clinton’s server and agents were examining the emails to determine whether they contain classified information.

The newly discovered emails were found on at least one device belonging to longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her husband, former congressman Anthony Weiner, as part of an investigation into Weiner’s sexting scandal, multiple news outlets reported citing law enforcement officials.

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation,” said Comey. “I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

There was no additional information about what information the emails contain or how long the investigation could take.

Of course Comey was also the asshole that let Hillary off the hook to begin with by not indicting her; even with ample evidence she violated the law.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

Comey is one of the last people that should ever be trusted. Him complaining about leaks is hilarious.

 
 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
4.3.5  bccrane  replied to  Ronin2 @4.3.4    2 years ago

Comey wasn't trying to torpedo Hillary, what he did was help President Hillary Clinton from being investigated for those emails on Weiner's laptop by an unfriendly congress and also the embarrassment the FBI would suffer if it was found that the FBI knew about those emails for a couple of months before the election and did nothing about it.  Remember he also cleared her again ending all investigations giving the republican congress nothing to go on.

Don't think that everything that is happening is spur of the moment, as what most people believed Comey did to Hillary, he was looking to the future as to how to help Hillary.  Just think that not everything is as it seems, look to other possibilities and how it will play out in the future. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Participates
5  Revillug    2 years ago

He's a gift that keeps giving.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Revillug @5    2 years ago

To who? Reject the "gift". Simple. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Participates
5.1.1  Revillug  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    2 years ago

It's not me you have to worry about.

I'm a hardcore Democrat and there is almost nothing that could make me vote for a Republican in a presidential election.

I do worry that Biden could get entangled in an influence peddling scandal.

Perhaps the gods will shine on us and the Dems will retain control of the House.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
5.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Revillug @5.1.1    2 years ago

"I do worry that Biden could get entangled in an influence peddling scandal."

As well  you should, as he will be.

"Perhaps the gods will shine on us and the Dems will retain control of the House."

Not a chance in hell

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6  Tacos!    2 years ago

I gotta be honest about this story. I just do not give a shit about Hunter Biden, and I can't imagine why the average middle of the spectrum American would either. I comment here to say so because this dude is in the news practically every day. And from what I can tell, there is virtually no reason for it beyond politics. When he is actually charged with a crime, maybe we'll all have something to talk about.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 years ago
I just do not give a shit about Hunter Biden

Oh come on. Joe didn't get anything out of all that influence peddling?

He never knew about it?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    2 years ago

It’s like I always say: Make the case and prosecute, if you can. Otherwise, it’s just gossip.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    2 years ago
"Oh come on. Joe didn't get anything out of all that influence peddling?"

Nope!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.1    2 years ago

You need a willing DA and AG to do that.

With Democrat tool Garland as AG Democrats don't get brought to justice.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.3    2 years ago
With Democrat tool Garland as AG Democrats don't get brought to justice.

That’s nothing more than a partisan conspiracy theory. Lack of prosecution doesn’t automatically mean the AG is corrupt. On the contrary, the Justice Department is literally investigating him right now. I mean, that’s the seed. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
6.2  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @6    2 years ago
I just do not give a shit about Hunter Biden

Same. If he was in office it would be different, but he's just another US citizen... Guilty or not, I just don't care. 

 
 

Who is online