It doesn’t matter. If you call them out on that, they call it nitpicking.
This is the part that just drives me bonkers: political leaders going into private business to make millions while out of office is scandalous? Do you know who really started the practice? Gerald Ford.
And if we’re talking about the ne’er do well son of a VP who becomes President who leverages his family name to get rich, why aren’t we talking about 1980’s era George W. Bush?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm
Or, if family connections leading to lucky encounters are interesting, maybe we should be talking about Neil, W’s brother.
Hell, even the Scion, ole’ HW, had his hand in the game of international business.
To be fair, because someone did something in the past doesn’t mean that it was a good idea. (But nor does it mean that it was a bad idea, either.)
Saying something like, “The US Constitution has granted blood citizenship since before you were born, it’s not some Liberal nonsense that was foisted on you, suddenly, in the last few years.” Is one thing. Saying, “Bill Clinton got away with using his position to coerce aides into sleeping with him. The President should always be allowed to do that sort of thing.” That doesn’t track.
There are arguments to be made for restrictions on elected leaders and financial entanglements. So far, the Hunter Biden issue hasn’t (seem to have) gone into the sort of territory where that discussion seems relevant, though.
And, mostly, the rightwing discussion seems to be focused on the opportunity to score political points, more than on taking an honest and fair appraisal of any real issues.
No one is saying anything about it being a good or bad idea, they are talking about whether any laws were broken.
And if you can point to what others have done in the past as well as the present, and had no one prosecute them for it, then prosecuting someone now for it requires a fair amount of justification.
Sure there are. IMHO, there is far too much intermingling of money and politics. But make those restrictions and then prosecute people for violating them. Don’t look at someone you want to prosecute and make up restrictions that have never been applied in the past.
“Outstanding” is not hard to get. I means more or less all 5s on your annual performance review. I got it for about 5 years in a row, Yeah, it;s nice, but not super special.
There is no statute of limitations on fraud.
If I go to my grave walking away from anyone who calls themself “An Outstanding”, I will not have made a mistake.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say? It seems like all that says is that fraud isn’t what they were considering charging him with.
No, that is exactly what they were charging him with- tax fraud. For which he plead guilty. Not much else IRS special agents can charge you with, in fact. (Oh, there are various other things, such as altering documents, but more or less tax fraud) That is why it is the Internal REVENUE Service, nit a generic Law enforcement agency.
Mind you if the Feds fail to prove fraud, and the SOL has expired, then they lose those years.
Note that giving the press or public this sort of info is completely totally against the law.
Curious. I’d also agree with the earlier point that it’s nonsensical for the defense counsel to sign to extend the statute of limitations.
It’s not nonsensical. It’s an extension of the government’s deadline by which they have to decide whether or not they’re coming after you.
If someone has until Friday afternoon to decide whether not to hit you with a hammer, and you think maybe they’re going to pick the “Yes” option, when they ask you if you want to push the deadline, you push the deadline.
In the specific case of tax fraud, there seems to be a 6 year limit (p3):
For example, we obtained a July 30th, 2017, WhatsApp message from Hunter Biden to Henry Zhao, where Hunter Biden wrote: “I am sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled. Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father.”
Communications like these made it clear we needed to search the guest house at
the Bidens’ Delaware residence where Hunter Biden stayed for a time.
This excerpt which was quoted above is a good example of “Where is the crime?”
Is there evidence of a crime in that WhatsApp message? What specific crime?
He then concludes, “Communications like these made it clear we needed to search the guest house at the Bidens’ Delaware residence where Hunter Biden stayed for a time.” Is that clear? To get a search warrant you have to convince a judge that there is probable cause that there is evidence of a specific crime at the location that is the target of the search. Does this WhatsApp message contain information that there is evidence of a specific crime in the guest house of the Bidens’ residence?
It sure doesn’t seem like it does. That “investigator” should know that, unless there was more evidence he didn’t mention (but why would he hold back?)
Incorrect.
Hunter pleaded guilty to a violation of 26 USC 7203, which is titled “ Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax”.
There’s no fraud alleged.
ETA: this horrible, horrible man didn’t pay the taxes he owed. I believe that donald once said that makes him “smart”. And he lied on a form so he could get a gun. This is what the right wing is outraged about?
Right. It is a defense tactic.
That is true, that is the exact change, however, that is commonly known as tax fraud. It is one sort of Tax fraud.
Exactly. If he had clear evidence of a crime he would have included it, but he chose to go with this. There isn’t even a copy of this WhatsApp message in any of the eleven exhibits include with the transcript. So the one and only example he gives of why it was “clear” that the Bidens’ guest house needed to be searched is his recollection of a WhatsApp message that doesn’t appear to discuss any criminal activity.
Yes, but there is a loophole-
Tax Fraud Statute of Limitations - Carver & Associates.
When it is determined that there is a substantial understatement in tax returns, the IRS will usually have six years to challenge the filing. However, this can be overturned when it is demonstrated that:
** There was a filing of a false tax return*
** The taxpayer willfully attempted to evade paying taxes, or*
** The taxpayer filed a false or fraudulent return*
If any of the three apply, the Internal Revenue Service can audit and charge interest and penalties without any limitations period.
In particular, the civil division of the IRS can pursue interest, civil penalties, and taxes without any limitation of time since the crime occurred.
I understand that to say that they could try to get a lien but that they wouldn’t be able to charge you with a crime.
I absolutely love that the CIA makes an appearance, not only in your list of options, but in your #1. Don’t ever change man.
Oh, that makes more sense. I took it to be the Culinary Institute of America.