So most news sources are ignoring the Hunter Biden issues.
- Thread starter TUMe
- Start date
We are coming very close to state controlled media. Pretty scary thought for those of us who follow history. Glad to see the WSJ cover it. Also happy to see the USA Today writer publish his story online after the paper refused to run it.
There's more work to be done. Here's an explanation what that work is...
"Cybersecurity is agnostic to politics."
As a cybersecurity expert and professional hacker, I can't tell you how many times I have made this statement on stage, on-air, or simply in normal conversation over the last few years. People ask me why I can't just hack into "something" to retrieve everything – from Hillary's emails to the president's tax returns. While cybersecurity aims to be apolitical, it's not immune to being involved in political situations. A bombshell New York Post story concerning Hunter Biden's laptop has thrust cybersecurity into the political spotlight yet again. As the general public begins suiting up in their usual red or blue jerseys, the cybersecurity professionals need to step back and examine multiple aspects of this situation – from determining who owned the laptop to judging the authenticity of the materials within in.
On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a story alleging that Hunter Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden, dropped off his personal laptop at a Delaware computer repair shop in April of 2019. The laptop was reportedly brought in with water damage and then never picked up by Biden. The repair shop owner claimed to have repeatedly attempted to contact Biden but was unsuccessful. After that, the repair shop owner said he made a copy of the hard drive and discovered incriminating evidence that Joe Biden, then-Vice President, pressured Ukrainian officials to fire federal prosecutors in addition to cozying up to Burisma, a dubious Ukrainian energy firm. There is also a video of Hunter Biden supposedly high on narcotics and engaging in adult activities with an unidentified woman. According to the New York Post, the FBI obtained the laptop from the repair shop owner in December of 2019 and has said nothing to date regarding the computer's contents. Additionally, a copy of the hard drive was reportedly given to an associate of Rudy Giuliani.
Let's walk through some of the questions and concerns from the standpoint of a non-partisan cybersecurity investigation.
Determining the Chain of Custody
Running under the assumption that the laptop itself is real, and the FBI has it, we can then assume it exists. If that is all true, then the first goal of a cybersecurity expert should be to validate its ownership. In other words, it means verifying that the laptop does indeed belong to Hunter Biden and not a forgery. The repair shop owner himself stated he wasn't sure it was Hunter Biden that dropped it off, which means that the Chain of Custody starts with this person. This issue complicates the situation because there is a possibility that this laptop came from somewhere else – including the owner himself. The owner has made conflicting statements to reporters, further compounding doubts.
Most organizations have IT personnel – either outsourced or in-house – that deal with the asset management of their technology. If the laptop was purchased through an employer of Hunter Biden – such as the Beau Biden Foundation – it would have a serial number from Apple that can be identified internally as their own. Most IT personnel can easily find who a laptop is assigned to thanks to asset management. If the Foundation's responses are suspect, then contacting Apple directly regarding the computer's registry is another avenue of confirmation.
Separately, if this was a laptop personally owned by Hunter Biden and not a company, he most likely had access permission to these companies, putting the computer into their internet ecosystem. This access can be used to identify personal devices outside company-registered technology and traced back to him.
Look at the Settings
Outside of determining the laptop's chain of custody, its configuration needs to be compared to the Beau Biden Foundation's standards and practices. Uniformity is the key to a well-run technological infrastructure. Many organizations have standard data security policies that apply to both the users and their technologies. If the proper procedure for repair at the Foundation was to turn it over to the IT team, then why did this laptop go to a repair shop by itself? Did this repair shop do all of the repair work for the Foundation? And if not, then why were they engaged for a single laptop?
It is possible that the Foundation played very fast and loose with their standards, but then that should be rather apparent throughout the history of the Foundation during this period. Vice President Biden would have been rather plugged into the national cybersecurity implications that his Foundation would have faced, especially given his prominent Executive Branch position. Top-tier national cybersecurity experts would have been advising both President Obama and Vice President Biden.
The Foundation would not be as secure as an entity like The White House. Still, if the Foundation lacked serious data and cybersecurity standards, then that itself would be eyebrow-raising to professionals like me. It's also possible that Hunter Biden himself dropped this laptop off at the repair without being identified due to the deeply personal nature of the video that was allegedly found; however, without confirmation from the repair shop owner (who couldn't recognize him), this too is speculation.
If the Foundation integrated uniform defensive technologies into their computers, then a comparison of the software in use in the laptop would help bolster the claim that the laptop was legitimately from the Foundation or even personally owned by Hunter Biden. Many organizations use Mobile Device Management (MDM) or Remote Managed Monitoring (RMM) to maintain their fleet of computers and devices. This would force the device or computer to phone home to a cloud service to "check-in." This could easily be traced back to the Foundation. Many organizations also use full disk encryption solutions to prevent access to the data in loss or theft cases.
If the laptop's cybersecurity standards match the laptop Foundations, that is a serious indicator that the computer is real and owned by the Foundation. However, it does not validate the laptop's data as legitimate, which brings us to the third point.
The data on the laptop itself needs to be examined. In repairing or fixing a computer, the technician working on the computer may see something on the computer that is concerning. If the technician stumbles across something criminal, such as child pornography, they are trained to stop working on the computer and notify law enforcement. This is standard practice. Some repair places go one step further and work closely with the FBI. The FBI will pay technicians when they identify illegal material, which motivates the technician to snoop around. In 2018 Best Buy's Geek Squad was accused of snooping around on personal computers to find something incriminating for the FBI.
Therefore, it's not out of the possibility that this technician, which is understood to the repair shop owner, worked under the same standards and went looking deeply into the laptop and found what is being reported publicly. However, since we don't have a transparent Chain of Custody and don't understand the Foundation's standards and practices, the data discovered on the laptop that has appeared in the news is automatically suspect. That statement is reinforced by how cybersecurity forensic examinations happen.
Consider these following points: The world knows of at least one copy of the alleged data on the laptop – Rudy Giuliani's copy. The FBI supposedly has the computer as mentioned above but has not confirmed that the data the mayor has released matches the laptop. This means the world is using a single unconfirmed source as a significant point of political contention, which should terrify anyone that understands the implications of this.
Continued next post..
"Cybersecurity is agnostic to politics."
As a cybersecurity expert and professional hacker, I can't tell you how many times I have made this statement on stage, on-air, or simply in normal conversation over the last few years. People ask me why I can't just hack into "something" to retrieve everything – from Hillary's emails to the president's tax returns. While cybersecurity aims to be apolitical, it's not immune to being involved in political situations. A bombshell New York Post story concerning Hunter Biden's laptop has thrust cybersecurity into the political spotlight yet again. As the general public begins suiting up in their usual red or blue jerseys, the cybersecurity professionals need to step back and examine multiple aspects of this situation – from determining who owned the laptop to judging the authenticity of the materials within in.
On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published a story alleging that Hunter Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden, dropped off his personal laptop at a Delaware computer repair shop in April of 2019. The laptop was reportedly brought in with water damage and then never picked up by Biden. The repair shop owner claimed to have repeatedly attempted to contact Biden but was unsuccessful. After that, the repair shop owner said he made a copy of the hard drive and discovered incriminating evidence that Joe Biden, then-Vice President, pressured Ukrainian officials to fire federal prosecutors in addition to cozying up to Burisma, a dubious Ukrainian energy firm. There is also a video of Hunter Biden supposedly high on narcotics and engaging in adult activities with an unidentified woman. According to the New York Post, the FBI obtained the laptop from the repair shop owner in December of 2019 and has said nothing to date regarding the computer's contents. Additionally, a copy of the hard drive was reportedly given to an associate of Rudy Giuliani.
Let's walk through some of the questions and concerns from the standpoint of a non-partisan cybersecurity investigation.
Determining the Chain of Custody
Running under the assumption that the laptop itself is real, and the FBI has it, we can then assume it exists. If that is all true, then the first goal of a cybersecurity expert should be to validate its ownership. In other words, it means verifying that the laptop does indeed belong to Hunter Biden and not a forgery. The repair shop owner himself stated he wasn't sure it was Hunter Biden that dropped it off, which means that the Chain of Custody starts with this person. This issue complicates the situation because there is a possibility that this laptop came from somewhere else – including the owner himself. The owner has made conflicting statements to reporters, further compounding doubts.
Most organizations have IT personnel – either outsourced or in-house – that deal with the asset management of their technology. If the laptop was purchased through an employer of Hunter Biden – such as the Beau Biden Foundation – it would have a serial number from Apple that can be identified internally as their own. Most IT personnel can easily find who a laptop is assigned to thanks to asset management. If the Foundation's responses are suspect, then contacting Apple directly regarding the computer's registry is another avenue of confirmation.
Separately, if this was a laptop personally owned by Hunter Biden and not a company, he most likely had access permission to these companies, putting the computer into their internet ecosystem. This access can be used to identify personal devices outside company-registered technology and traced back to him.
Look at the Settings
Outside of determining the laptop's chain of custody, its configuration needs to be compared to the Beau Biden Foundation's standards and practices. Uniformity is the key to a well-run technological infrastructure. Many organizations have standard data security policies that apply to both the users and their technologies. If the proper procedure for repair at the Foundation was to turn it over to the IT team, then why did this laptop go to a repair shop by itself? Did this repair shop do all of the repair work for the Foundation? And if not, then why were they engaged for a single laptop?
It is possible that the Foundation played very fast and loose with their standards, but then that should be rather apparent throughout the history of the Foundation during this period. Vice President Biden would have been rather plugged into the national cybersecurity implications that his Foundation would have faced, especially given his prominent Executive Branch position. Top-tier national cybersecurity experts would have been advising both President Obama and Vice President Biden.
The Foundation would not be as secure as an entity like The White House. Still, if the Foundation lacked serious data and cybersecurity standards, then that itself would be eyebrow-raising to professionals like me. It's also possible that Hunter Biden himself dropped this laptop off at the repair without being identified due to the deeply personal nature of the video that was allegedly found; however, without confirmation from the repair shop owner (who couldn't recognize him), this too is speculation.
If the Foundation integrated uniform defensive technologies into their computers, then a comparison of the software in use in the laptop would help bolster the claim that the laptop was legitimately from the Foundation or even personally owned by Hunter Biden. Many organizations use Mobile Device Management (MDM) or Remote Managed Monitoring (RMM) to maintain their fleet of computers and devices. This would force the device or computer to phone home to a cloud service to "check-in." This could easily be traced back to the Foundation. Many organizations also use full disk encryption solutions to prevent access to the data in loss or theft cases.
If the laptop's cybersecurity standards match the laptop Foundations, that is a serious indicator that the computer is real and owned by the Foundation. However, it does not validate the laptop's data as legitimate, which brings us to the third point.
The data on the laptop itself needs to be examined. In repairing or fixing a computer, the technician working on the computer may see something on the computer that is concerning. If the technician stumbles across something criminal, such as child pornography, they are trained to stop working on the computer and notify law enforcement. This is standard practice. Some repair places go one step further and work closely with the FBI. The FBI will pay technicians when they identify illegal material, which motivates the technician to snoop around. In 2018 Best Buy's Geek Squad was accused of snooping around on personal computers to find something incriminating for the FBI.
Therefore, it's not out of the possibility that this technician, which is understood to the repair shop owner, worked under the same standards and went looking deeply into the laptop and found what is being reported publicly. However, since we don't have a transparent Chain of Custody and don't understand the Foundation's standards and practices, the data discovered on the laptop that has appeared in the news is automatically suspect. That statement is reinforced by how cybersecurity forensic examinations happen.
Consider these following points: The world knows of at least one copy of the alleged data on the laptop – Rudy Giuliani's copy. The FBI supposedly has the computer as mentioned above but has not confirmed that the data the mayor has released matches the laptop. This means the world is using a single unconfirmed source as a significant point of political contention, which should terrify anyone that understands the implications of this.
Continued next post..
The data needs to be verified. One way of doing that is through emails. The New York Post article shows an alleged email to Hunter Biden's Rosemont Seneca email address. Emails have transaction IDs that can be tracked to originating sources. Rosemont Seneca no longer exists as BHR Partners absorbed it in China. A quick routing check shows that Rosemont Seneca's internet domain no longer has email routing; however, they would have fallen under various U.S. compliance standards, most likely including SEC compliance. This means that they were required to retain data for years; otherwise, they could face legal action from the government along with fines and worse. The message headers included with the email – not shown by the New York Post – would allow investigators to trace the messages and confirm authenticity. So far, we have no independent verification of anything happening on that front.
The alleged video of Hunter Biden being high and engaging in adult activities needs an in-depth forensic examination to ensure it is not a “deepfake.” In a nutshell, a deepfake is the use of artificial intelligence to overlay someone's face onto an image or video and then scan it multiple times, looking to smooth over the little artifacts and other visual clues that make a deepfake video seem "off" in some way. It has been pervasive, prolific, and vastly improving over time. This deepfake video of President Obama from 2018 is rudimentary at best compared to the improved techniques of 2020, as witnessed in this video. They are getting extraordinarily accurate and virtually impossible to detect by the naked eye when done correctly. Unfortunately, researchers have been outgunned on this front even though companies like Microsoft have made strides recently. Essentially this video needs independent verification by deepfake experts that are trained to look at this. Until then, this video is also suspect.
Mayor Giuliani allegedly has a "copy" of the hard drive, per the New York Post article. "Copy" is an interesting word to a cybersecurity professional. It is typical for a repair shop to back up the data before repairing a computer due to the liability that potentially lost data brings. However, there are many ways to do this. Did the repair shop simply copy and paste folders from the laptop to another device? Did they back up the computer using integrated technologies like Time Machine from Apple? Did they use some imaging software to essentially take a complete snapshot of the hard drive onto another device for storage while they repaired it?
Given the New York Post article's claim that the laptop had water damage, I speculate that they would have physically extracted the hard drive from the MacBook Pro and then attached it to another computer and duplicated the drive via imaging software. An image made in this manner can be mounted and searched to retrieve information, but it can also be manipulated to insert data into it. This process can be easily done for legitimate purposes, such as fixing backup corruption; however, it could also be used to insert false information into a laptop. This would require a forensic examination of both the image and originating source to verify.
Considering all of the above, the only answer I have to give as a cybersecurity professional dealing with similar situations is this: I have no flipping clue… yet. There are too many gaps in the story and too many points that have no independent verification, which means a good deal of this alleged evidence is taken on faith alone. True cybersecurity professionals would never abide by this standard of proof. Time will tell one way or the other.
The alleged video of Hunter Biden being high and engaging in adult activities needs an in-depth forensic examination to ensure it is not a “deepfake.” In a nutshell, a deepfake is the use of artificial intelligence to overlay someone's face onto an image or video and then scan it multiple times, looking to smooth over the little artifacts and other visual clues that make a deepfake video seem "off" in some way. It has been pervasive, prolific, and vastly improving over time. This deepfake video of President Obama from 2018 is rudimentary at best compared to the improved techniques of 2020, as witnessed in this video. They are getting extraordinarily accurate and virtually impossible to detect by the naked eye when done correctly. Unfortunately, researchers have been outgunned on this front even though companies like Microsoft have made strides recently. Essentially this video needs independent verification by deepfake experts that are trained to look at this. Until then, this video is also suspect.
Mayor Giuliani allegedly has a "copy" of the hard drive, per the New York Post article. "Copy" is an interesting word to a cybersecurity professional. It is typical for a repair shop to back up the data before repairing a computer due to the liability that potentially lost data brings. However, there are many ways to do this. Did the repair shop simply copy and paste folders from the laptop to another device? Did they back up the computer using integrated technologies like Time Machine from Apple? Did they use some imaging software to essentially take a complete snapshot of the hard drive onto another device for storage while they repaired it?
Given the New York Post article's claim that the laptop had water damage, I speculate that they would have physically extracted the hard drive from the MacBook Pro and then attached it to another computer and duplicated the drive via imaging software. An image made in this manner can be mounted and searched to retrieve information, but it can also be manipulated to insert data into it. This process can be easily done for legitimate purposes, such as fixing backup corruption; however, it could also be used to insert false information into a laptop. This would require a forensic examination of both the image and originating source to verify.
Considering all of the above, the only answer I have to give as a cybersecurity professional dealing with similar situations is this: I have no flipping clue… yet. There are too many gaps in the story and too many points that have no independent verification, which means a good deal of this alleged evidence is taken on faith alone. True cybersecurity professionals would never abide by this standard of proof. Time will tell one way or the other.
I guess you are misinformed bc the FBI already had the laptop under a subpoena for laundering and later opened up an investigation on child porn. When Hunter left his laptop with the repair store owner for so long without paying, he forfeited his right to his property. The store owner was then entitled to release whatever the content were on the laptop. There was no hack, no Russian disinformation, only a dumb crackhead who got big Tech to cover for him and his dad!
Since when does the media wait for “data to be verified” before running a story? I can list countless times over the last 5 years where they ran with unverified data, reports, sources and stories. The standard is different here and we all understand why.
It’s totally bunk and you’re an idiot if you give it any time.
Here's the story from the WSJ in case anyone wants to read it. As I've said many times the story isn't the "story" imo it's the political censorship the U.S. media is now actively engaged in.
Joe Biden has a problem, and his name is Hunter. Because the former vice president hasn’t had to answer any questions on this topic—and continued to refuse to do so in Thursday’s debate—that problem could soon become America’s.
That’s the reality now that a former business partner of Hunter Biden’s has come forward to provide the ugly details of the “family brand.” Tony Bobulinski, a Navy veteran and institutional investor, has provided the Journal emails and text messages associated with his time as CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, a venture between the Bidens and CEFC China Energy, a Shanghai-based conglomerate. That correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post, which says they come from a Hunter laptop.
In a statement, Mr. Bobulinski said he went public because he wants to clear his name, which was contained in those published emails, and because accusations that the information is fake or “Russian disinformation” are “offensive.” He attests that all the correspondence he provided is genuine, including documents that suggest Hunter was cashing in on the Biden name and that Joe Biden was involved. Mr. Bobulinski says he was also alarmed by a September report from Sen. Ron Johnson that “connected some dots” on the CEFC deal, causing him now to believe the Bidens sold out their U.S. partners.
Mr. Bobulinski’s text messages show he was recruited for the project by James Gilliar, a Hunter associate. Mr. Gilliar explains in a December 2015 text that there will be a deal between the Chinese and “one of the most prominent families from the U.S.” A month later he introduces Rob Walker, also “a partner of Biden.” In March 2016, Mr. Gilliar tells Mr. Bobulinski the Chinese entity is CEFC, which is shaping up to be “the Goldmans of China.” Mr. Gilliar promises that same month to “develop” the terms of a deal “with hunter.” Note that in 2015-16, Joe Biden was still vice president.
As the deal takes shape in 2017, Mr. Bobulinski begins to question what Hunter will contribute besides his name, and worries that he was “kicked out of US Navy for cocaine use.” Mr. Gilliar acknowledges “skill sets [sic] missing” and observes that Hunter “has a few demons.” He explains that “in brand [Hunter is] imperative but right know [sic] he’s not essential for adding input.” Mr. Bobulinski writes that he appreciates “the name/leverage being used” but thinks the economic “upside” should go to the team doing the actual work. Mr. Gilliar reminds him that those on the Chinese side “are intelligence so they understand the value added.”
This dispute almost derails the deal. Hunter is hardly visible through most of the work, until final contract negotiations ramp up in mid-May. He brings in his uncle Jim Biden for a stake. (Mr. Gilliar in a text message soothes Mr. Bobulinski with a promise that Jim’s addition “strengthens our USP”—unique selling proposition—“to the Chinese as it looks like a truly family business.”) Hunter in texts and emails wants offices in three U.S. cities, “significant” travel budgets, a stipend for Jim Biden, a job for an assistant, and more-frequent distributions of any gains. As for annual pay, he explains in an email that he expects “a hell of a lot more than 850” thousand dollars a year (the amount Mr. Bobulinski, the CEO, is getting), since his ex-wife will take nearly all of it.
Mr. Bobulinksi pushes back, warning Mr. Gilliar in a text that they need to “manage” Hunter because “he thinks things are going to be his personal piggybank.” The duo worry about his “mental state,” substance abuse, and his ability to make meetings.
Hunter, in his own angry texts, makes clear that his contribution is his name. He rails at Mr. Bobulinski that the CEFC heads are “coming to be MY partner to be partners with the Bidens.” He reminds him “that in this instance only one player holds the trump card and that’s me. May not be fair but it’s the reality because I’m the only one putting an entire family legacy on the line.” Mr. Gilliar privately tells Mr. Bobulinski to show flexibility, since “I know why [CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming] wants the deal and what makes it enormous, It’s the family name.”
CEFC was closely entwined with the Chinese government and military until it went bankrupt, following U.S. charges of money laundering. There is no question CEFC was buying Hunter for influence.
Joe Biden claims he has never discussed his son’s business. Yet a May 2017 “expectations” document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for “the big guy”—who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden.
In one text, Hunter says that “my Chairman gave an emphatic NO” to a version of the deal. Mr. Walker, Hunter’s partner, explains in a text to Mr. Bobulinski that when Hunter “said his chairman he was talking about his dad.”
Mr. Bobulinski’s texts show he even met with Joe Biden. Mr. Gilliar reminds him in May 2017: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.” Mr. Biden had left office by then, though CEFC was always a suspicious company with ties to a rival government. It would have a been risky for any public figure to deal with it, much less a potential presidential candidate. Mr. Biden was given ample opportunity to deny the authenticity or facts of the Bobulinski information at Thursday’s debate; he didn’t.
The deal fell through on the Chinese end in the summer of 2017. CEFC was supposed to supply $10 million; it never arrived. This is where the Johnson report comes in. The Senate report notes that CEFC wired $5 million to a company called Hudson West in August 2017. The report says an associate of CEFC Chairman Ye in September opened a line of credit under Hudson West’s name, and Hunter, Jim Biden and Jim Biden’s wife, Sara, were given credit cards associated with the account, and bought items totaling more than $100,000.
The report says Hudson West also sent $4.7 million in “consulting fees” to Mr. Biden’s law firm over the course of a year. Mr. Bobulinski suspects Hunter and Jim had found an easier way to cash in on their name, one that didn’t involve pesky partners and complex deals. He sent a furious text to Jim Biden after the release of the Senate report, accusing Hunter and Jim of “lying” to their partners and secretly taking money from CEFC. The FBI last year subpoenaed Hunter’s laptop. A call to Hunter Biden’s attorney was not returned by our deadline.
All of this is news. The press corps that is ignoring it spent four years writing about Donald Trump’s Moscow business. The correspondence meanwhile blows up Rep. Adam Schiff’s claim that the Hunter story is Russian “disinformation.” It raises real concerns about what security risks Hunter might pose for a Biden administration. And it raises questions about Joe Biden’s involvement.
The former vice president is running on trust and good judgment. The Hunter tale is at best the story of a wayward son and indulgent father. At worst, it is an example of the entire Biden clan cashing in on its name with a U.S. rival. As Mr. Biden refuses to answer questions about this case, voters will have to make up their own minds. But given Hunter’s exploits in China, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and elsewhere, much more is yet to come—in the next week and a half and potentially in a Biden presidency.
Joe Biden has a problem, and his name is Hunter. Because the former vice president hasn’t had to answer any questions on this topic—and continued to refuse to do so in Thursday’s debate—that problem could soon become America’s.
That’s the reality now that a former business partner of Hunter Biden’s has come forward to provide the ugly details of the “family brand.” Tony Bobulinski, a Navy veteran and institutional investor, has provided the Journal emails and text messages associated with his time as CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, a venture between the Bidens and CEFC China Energy, a Shanghai-based conglomerate. That correspondence corroborates and expands on emails recently published by the New York Post, which says they come from a Hunter laptop.
In a statement, Mr. Bobulinski said he went public because he wants to clear his name, which was contained in those published emails, and because accusations that the information is fake or “Russian disinformation” are “offensive.” He attests that all the correspondence he provided is genuine, including documents that suggest Hunter was cashing in on the Biden name and that Joe Biden was involved. Mr. Bobulinski says he was also alarmed by a September report from Sen. Ron Johnson that “connected some dots” on the CEFC deal, causing him now to believe the Bidens sold out their U.S. partners.
Mr. Bobulinski’s text messages show he was recruited for the project by James Gilliar, a Hunter associate. Mr. Gilliar explains in a December 2015 text that there will be a deal between the Chinese and “one of the most prominent families from the U.S.” A month later he introduces Rob Walker, also “a partner of Biden.” In March 2016, Mr. Gilliar tells Mr. Bobulinski the Chinese entity is CEFC, which is shaping up to be “the Goldmans of China.” Mr. Gilliar promises that same month to “develop” the terms of a deal “with hunter.” Note that in 2015-16, Joe Biden was still vice president.
As the deal takes shape in 2017, Mr. Bobulinski begins to question what Hunter will contribute besides his name, and worries that he was “kicked out of US Navy for cocaine use.” Mr. Gilliar acknowledges “skill sets [sic] missing” and observes that Hunter “has a few demons.” He explains that “in brand [Hunter is] imperative but right know [sic] he’s not essential for adding input.” Mr. Bobulinski writes that he appreciates “the name/leverage being used” but thinks the economic “upside” should go to the team doing the actual work. Mr. Gilliar reminds him that those on the Chinese side “are intelligence so they understand the value added.”
This dispute almost derails the deal. Hunter is hardly visible through most of the work, until final contract negotiations ramp up in mid-May. He brings in his uncle Jim Biden for a stake. (Mr. Gilliar in a text message soothes Mr. Bobulinski with a promise that Jim’s addition “strengthens our USP”—unique selling proposition—“to the Chinese as it looks like a truly family business.”) Hunter in texts and emails wants offices in three U.S. cities, “significant” travel budgets, a stipend for Jim Biden, a job for an assistant, and more-frequent distributions of any gains. As for annual pay, he explains in an email that he expects “a hell of a lot more than 850” thousand dollars a year (the amount Mr. Bobulinski, the CEO, is getting), since his ex-wife will take nearly all of it.
Mr. Bobulinksi pushes back, warning Mr. Gilliar in a text that they need to “manage” Hunter because “he thinks things are going to be his personal piggybank.” The duo worry about his “mental state,” substance abuse, and his ability to make meetings.
Hunter, in his own angry texts, makes clear that his contribution is his name. He rails at Mr. Bobulinski that the CEFC heads are “coming to be MY partner to be partners with the Bidens.” He reminds him “that in this instance only one player holds the trump card and that’s me. May not be fair but it’s the reality because I’m the only one putting an entire family legacy on the line.” Mr. Gilliar privately tells Mr. Bobulinski to show flexibility, since “I know why [CEFC Chairman Ye Jianming] wants the deal and what makes it enormous, It’s the family name.”
CEFC was closely entwined with the Chinese government and military until it went bankrupt, following U.S. charges of money laundering. There is no question CEFC was buying Hunter for influence.
Joe Biden claims he has never discussed his son’s business. Yet a May 2017 “expectations” document shows Hunter receiving 20% of the equity in the venture and holding another 10% for “the big guy”—who Mr. Bobulinski attests is Joe Biden.
In one text, Hunter says that “my Chairman gave an emphatic NO” to a version of the deal. Mr. Walker, Hunter’s partner, explains in a text to Mr. Bobulinski that when Hunter “said his chairman he was talking about his dad.”
Mr. Bobulinski’s texts show he even met with Joe Biden. Mr. Gilliar reminds him in May 2017: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.” Mr. Biden had left office by then, though CEFC was always a suspicious company with ties to a rival government. It would have a been risky for any public figure to deal with it, much less a potential presidential candidate. Mr. Biden was given ample opportunity to deny the authenticity or facts of the Bobulinski information at Thursday’s debate; he didn’t.
The deal fell through on the Chinese end in the summer of 2017. CEFC was supposed to supply $10 million; it never arrived. This is where the Johnson report comes in. The Senate report notes that CEFC wired $5 million to a company called Hudson West in August 2017. The report says an associate of CEFC Chairman Ye in September opened a line of credit under Hudson West’s name, and Hunter, Jim Biden and Jim Biden’s wife, Sara, were given credit cards associated with the account, and bought items totaling more than $100,000.
The report says Hudson West also sent $4.7 million in “consulting fees” to Mr. Biden’s law firm over the course of a year. Mr. Bobulinski suspects Hunter and Jim had found an easier way to cash in on their name, one that didn’t involve pesky partners and complex deals. He sent a furious text to Jim Biden after the release of the Senate report, accusing Hunter and Jim of “lying” to their partners and secretly taking money from CEFC. The FBI last year subpoenaed Hunter’s laptop. A call to Hunter Biden’s attorney was not returned by our deadline.
All of this is news. The press corps that is ignoring it spent four years writing about Donald Trump’s Moscow business. The correspondence meanwhile blows up Rep. Adam Schiff’s claim that the Hunter story is Russian “disinformation.” It raises real concerns about what security risks Hunter might pose for a Biden administration. And it raises questions about Joe Biden’s involvement.
The former vice president is running on trust and good judgment. The Hunter tale is at best the story of a wayward son and indulgent father. At worst, it is an example of the entire Biden clan cashing in on its name with a U.S. rival. As Mr. Biden refuses to answer questions about this case, voters will have to make up their own minds. But given Hunter’s exploits in China, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and elsewhere, much more is yet to come—in the next week and a half and potentially in a Biden presidency.
That’s an op ed. It’a the actual exact opposite of fact and not much different then the Onion. The WSJ also ran a story yesterday debunking this. Your news illiteracy is not a reason to waste people’s times with crap you want to be true because you’re scared of old white men not having all the power.
You also live in a world where you vote against your self interest for a racist and fascistic president who doesn’t believe in the rule of law. You choose your facts.
Seriously, that’s not even responsive to my point. The “journalistic” source is an op-Ed the same paper debunked the same day. It’s a joke. If you don’t understand the significance of this, you don’t understand how newspapers work, particularly one owned by the Murdoch family and their only outlet with any shred of remaining credibility.
Seriously, that’s not even responsive to my point. The “journalistic” source is an op-Ed the same paper debunked the same day. It’s a joke. If you don’t understand the significance of this, you don’t understand how newspapers work, particularly one owned by the Murdoch family and their only outlet with any shred of remaining credibility.
Last edited:
News agencies functioning as tools of propaganda is nothing new however I fail to see how you equate the factual/non propaganda FBI investigation into laundering and child porn isn’t considered in your mind facts. We live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty but just like the GF incident, you don’t need to be a legal expert to identify a crime!
Nor is one willingness to automatically dismiss a story the FBI is investigating due to one’s political bias. I personally don’t really care what Joe’s kid did nor do I expect the same to affect the election. The story here for those not following along is media bias and censorship. As far as wasting peoples’ time with crap...that should be the people’s choice and not the few who choose what we should or should not read.
Joe Biden is an old white man btw
I don’t disagree that a huge piece of this is the big tech censorship but downplaying the security risk caused to Sleepy Joe by his sons actions can’t be ignored either. Those who have gone through the security clearance process can attest to that. It absolutely does matter what members of your family do as it can make you vulnerable to extortion. The more Joe denies his son did nothing wrong, the more of a Security threat he creates.
Last edited:
The FBI has been involved since 2019. Pressure from the masses has forced them to admit this. We deserve answers one way or another!
Thanks for your insight on Joe Biden. Trump’s supporters are largely from a different demographic, which you qualify for.
There are no facts on this Hunter Biden stuff. Your “proof” is an opinion piece that the same paper discredited. You can keep trying to avoid that issue, but your argument still sucks. The rest of your critique is about journalistic standards, which clearly have been adhered to.
A deeper issue is that one candidate lies infinitely more than the other one here. There is a problem with the truth in this election. Media outlets are wise to avoid this garbage when the “source” is a pederast drunk with no credibility. You have the freedom to believe this garbage, but it won’t change the fact that it is odiously not true information And the only reason you are talking about It is because it makes you feel better about the ass kicking you know is coming for your side in exactly one Scaramucci. It’s like the couple of weeks before Bedlam for you most years, I suppose. And to th at end, according to 538, the election odds aren’t that different than OSU’s winning percentage in Bedlam.
You’re going to have to work a lot harder than this to get my hopes up. Sat through far too many games not to know what to expect.
Now you guys are pissing me off.
We formed the sports boards so we could keep all that controversial sports stuff off of this board.
Here you guys go jumping down a rabbit hole about football contests and the like. Take it to the football board, and keep that annoying stuff off of here.
That’s like when 2poor wrote “free board” on a Rippin rant in the Alley. That was a good one.
Right we pay good money to post here, aTUfan might get upset cuz freeloaders get something they didn't pay for. Doesn't everybody on here have to pay six cheese wrappers a month for this board? You guys are both homeless right?
Last edited:
The former vice president is running on trust and good judgment. ....... At worst, it is an example of the entire Biden clan cashing in on its name with a U.S. rival. As Mr. Biden refuses to answer questions about this case, voters will have to make up their own minds.
[/QUOTE]
IS this a double standard? Biden can be criticized for dubious charges but not Trump because there is no longer any expectation of trust or his not cashing in on the presidency? Trump's family and businesses have benefitted mightily with China, Russia and others.
[/QUOTE]
IS this a double standard? Biden can be criticized for dubious charges but not Trump because there is no longer any expectation of trust or his not cashing in on the presidency? Trump's family and businesses have benefitted mightily with China, Russia and others.
IS this a double standard? Biden can be criticized for dubious charges but not Trump because there is no longer any expectation of trust or his not cashing in on the presidency? Trump's family and businesses have benefitted mightily with China, Russia and others.
[/QUOTE
There is nothing wrong with profiting. This is America! The difference is it is illegal to launder and have sex with and torture children which is exactly what is being investigated.
Facebook reducing distribution of Hunter Biden story in New York Post
Facebook and Twitter limited the distribution of a story in the New York Post about a purported email between Hunter Biden and an adviser to a Ukrainian energy company.
I find it more interesting when someone gets elected to congress as a thousand aire, and soon becomes a millionaire
No, yes, yes, & yes 👍. I find it amusing that you didn't know didn't know the Bush family was old money 💰. Clinton was probably just shy of a net worth of a million when he entered office. Most of the Clinton's money 💰 was made after he left office 🏢. Plus Hillary's family was old money 💰.
You do understand that pretty much every President get's huge book 📗 deals and speaking engagements after they leave office 🏢. And the money 💰 they make can be invested well with all the contacts they have made before and during their Presidency.
If a president didn't leave office 🏢 and make a bunch of money 💰 after office 🏢, then they would be a horrible money 💰 manager.
Last edited:
Jimmy Carter hasn't made a bunch of money. He doesn't do the book deals and speaking engagement tours. His choice.
That is a special circumstance. Not many president's faith lead them to serve without looking towards personal benefit after office 🏢.
After endiring this season of political ads that all say vote for me cause the other guy is a crook,
I suggest that in every 60second ad, the candidate gets 45seconds to make his comments. Then the opponent gets 15seconds to rebut.
I suggest that in every 60second ad, the candidate gets 45seconds to make his comments. Then the opponent gets 15seconds to rebut.
The Wall Street Journal and Fox refuse to publish fake news.
"In June, 280 Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones staffers sent a letter to the publisher of the paper saying the opinion section's "lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/wall-...e-debunking-opinion-sides-hunter-biden-screed
Fox News refused when author of article declined to put his name on the article.
Fox News rejected Hunter Biden exposé; New York Post writer refused to put his name on it: reports
The FBI is investigating whether the story is tied to a Russian influence operation, according to multiple reports
Last edited:
The FBI has an ongoing investigation going back to 2019 on grounds of child pornography with Hunter Biden and the videos on his laptop. According to the FBI, the investigation has taken so long bc the alleged crime took place in China and they had to go to try to locate the girls in China that were in the video. The FBI just now opened an investigation on the email portion that includes possible laundering. Fox can’t show the videos bc it possibly Involves minors. Fox has discussed the possible laundering. Sorry to debunk your theory but glad I can fact check for you!The Wall Street Journal and Fox refuse to publish fake news.
"In June, 280 Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones staffers sent a letter to the publisher of the paper saying the opinion section's "lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/wall-...e-debunking-opinion-sides-hunter-biden-screed
Fox News refused when author of article declined to put his name on the article.
Fox News rejected Hunter Biden exposé; New York Post writer refused to put his name on it: reports
The FBI is investigating whether the story is tied to a Russian influence operation, according to multiple reportsnews.yahoo.com
Last edited:
