Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Gonna mirror the affidavits from the story here without all the undeserved ad clicks - it's court records, not proprietary journalism.
The way the first affadavit describes 2 german shepherds is really quite something, lol. "non-breed acceptable traits with an intruder" the Dog Owners thread would make a dogs breakfast of paragraph 5.
Paragraph's 3,4,7, all pose peccability issues with who is giving the affidavit, the employer's stated investigatory motivations (ie. "Witch Hunting" Trump might say) and profit motive (paid investigator). And especially dressing down the fact that this person is not a member of law enforcement or a member of a state or federal agency, potentially taking advantage of someone's ignorance of their statutory rights and best legal options (eg. taking the interview with the company of legal counsel). And the notary's introduction of the witness is "resident." They hold no title, they're not an FBI agent, or from an OIG's office, not even a Sherriff. Resident.
Paragraph 9, witness supplants the lead-in lead-out of a "direct quote." If he was investigating, and Biden is compliant, wouldn't there have been an interaction like "can I quote you on that?" etc. and have them you know, possibly write that whole quote down, etc. - and PA is a two-party consent state, so he couldn't have (legally) recorded the conversation without Jim Biden's consent and therefore, why not offer the direct quote of the exchange? There's NO page limit to an affidavit, I promise.
"It is of great interest to me that James never asked who my client was"
So not only is the witness to the court, tacitly testifying that he never disclosed who he was working for to Jim Biden, but then he goes on to insert such strange, conspiratorial aside to the Judge who has to read this? I see a lot of room for doubt here, and a lot of testimony that, in writing and in written prose, is the hearsay mostly of the investigator peppered only with a few select "quotes," often sentence fragments. The closer, where he's like "I didn't ask for further explanation" and then starts editorializing more conspiracy nonsense in supplantation of any actual evidences from a conversation that, by this persons account, was 90 minutes long. In 90 minutes, He could barely fill 16 paragraphs, and the most he did was about the 2 German Shepherds, and the Secret Service agents he also saw on the way in, that were suddenly now worthy of being narrated as a dark and ominous force of oppression, oooOOOoooohhhh.
Affadavit 2 is another "resident" ho boy howdy!
"resident" Vernon Lankford, not introduced or testified into notarized record, is not indicated in this affidavit of being affiliated with "Hill," or having any unique or insider knowledge about Hill.
The Notary is very clear in the intro: 'this person came into my office and spouted this conspiracy theory'
Part 1, even, the Notary points out it is the "("The Claim")" of the "Resident."
"Hill," by the way, is never introduced in this affadavit. It doesn't say who Hill is, if it's a person or a company, it just says hill "acquired" Gibbs & Hill (ie. "Gibbs") but the affadavit doesn't explain who the Hill in Gibbs & Hill was before Hill "acquired it" nor does it tell me what the KSA is, either, that testimony is referring too..
I mean I've not read that many affidavits, IANAL, but this is a slog. And IDK what's up with this watermark:
"Richter confided [according to "resident"] that he selected Biden because KSA would not dare stiff the brother of the Vice-President who would be instrumental to the deal." It's not clear how much of that statement implicated the Bidens at all, but rather this Richter fella and "the Professional Firms" for their "Congressional offensive designed to pressure KSA to honor its debt to Hill which, by this time, had grown to $140 million" since the 1980s.
However, if they were openly, legally, and ethically 'offending Congress' to get their debt resolved, that would also openly, legally, and ethically involve the leadership of congress - including the President of the Senate, ie. the Vice President of the United States, ie, Joe Biden at the time referenced in the affidavit.
How about that? 😶
"Biden never shared copies of his notes of that meeting." Not a criminal offense.
"Richter now seemed indifferent" is awfully opinionated. More conspiracy dog whistles imo.
In part 13. it sounds like they're trying to pin the settlement proposed in Part 5. (The Company, acting through Richter, was receptive to this approach). But when "resident" introduces Biden as having possibly incepted the KSA to close the deal, "resident" regards it as "secretly agreed:"
But when a Biden is involved - it suddenly is meant to sound conspiratorial:
Even though Richter was hired starting in 1993 to get the money back, even lobbying Congress to help them do so.
I see nothing here to criminally or ethically implicate the Bidens. But the people who have been lobbying the hell out of them for decades sure sound like they are willing to weaponize the Bidens with or without their direct knowledge of that tactic when it suits them.
1 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
