On February 27, 2023, Chairman Comer issued a subpoena for certain financial records. The subpoena sought unique and particularized information critical to the Committee’s investigation, connected to three Biden family business associates. The Committee’s Recent Subpoena for Bank Records The Committee seeks to craft legislative solutions aimed at deficiencies it has identified in the current legal framework regarding ethics laws and disclosure of financial interests related to the immediate family members of Vice Presidents and Presidents—deficiencies that may place American national security and interests at risk. Pursuant to a subpoena, the Committee recently obtained financial records related to Mr. John Robinson Walker, a Biden family associate, and his company Robinson Walker, LLC. Prior to issuing the subpoena, the Committee received information that Mr. Walker used his company to transfer money to Biden family members. The bank records proved that information correct. Ranking Member Jamie Raskin mischaracterized the substance of the bank records by referencing payments related to Mr. Walker’s miscellaneous purchases such as “Papa John’s” and “coffee at Starbucks[.]” Rep. Raskin omitted material facts that Robinson Walker, LLC received a $3 million wire from a Chinese company in March 2017—less than two months after Vice President Joe Biden left public office—and that Mr. Walker then transferred over a million dollars to various bank accounts associated with the Bidens in the following months. To correct Rep. Raskin’s disinformation about our evidence, we are providing a synopsis of some of the payments from the Rob Walker accounts to the Biden family. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Bank-Records-Memo-3.16.23.pdf 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses (b)Whoever— (2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: official act; (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person; (3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom; (4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom; shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. ............ 18 U.S. Code § 1956 - Laundering of monetary instruments (a) (3)Whoever, with the intent— specified unlawful activity; proceeds of specified unlawful activity; or transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law, conducts or attempts to conduct a financial transaction involving property represented to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, or property used to conduct or facilitate specified unlawful activity, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph (2), the term “represented” means any representation made by a law enforcement officer or by another person at the direction of, or with the approval of, a Federal official authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of this section. ............ The Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 18 U.S. Code § 1952 - Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises (a)Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to— unlawful activity; or unlawful activity; or unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform— unlawful activity” means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on which the Federal excise tax has not been paid, narcotics or controlled substances (as defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substances Act), or prostitution offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States, (2) extortion, bribery, or arson in violation of the laws of the State in which committed or of the United States, or (3) any act which is indictable under subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or under section 1956 or 1957 of this title and (ii) the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. section 670), the punishment for the offense shall be the same as the punishment for an offense under section 670 unless the punishment under subsection (a) is greater. 18 U.S. Code § 1960 - Prohibition of unlicensed money transmitting businesses (a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. unlicensed money transmitting business” means a money transmitting business which affects interstate or foreign commerce in any manner or degree and— money transmitting license in a State where such operation is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony under State law, whether or not the defendant knew that the operation was required to be licensed or that the operation was so punishable; money transmitting business registration requirements under section 5330 of title 31, United States Code, or regulations prescribed under such section; or money transmitting” includes transferring funds on behalf of the public by any and all means including but not limited to transfers within this country or to locations abroad by wire, check, draft, facsimile, or courier; and State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
Hopefully Miami is prepared. Jan 6th should have shown how violent & deadly it can get. “Miami is bracing amid fears of possible protests and civil unrest as former President Donald Trump arrives in the city for his arraignment” The 76-year-old, who is hoping to get another shot at the presidency and has been the clear Republican frontrunner during the 2024 election campaign so far, is now facing 37 felony counts, including 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information, “ How Miami is preparing for potential Trump unrest
We don’t want mob bosses running for elected office either. Thank God we have a justice department that’s actually doing something.
I am sure I’ve got a few screws loose, pkaib, but I also suspect that I have done a poor explaining my position. I don’t mean to suggest that the corrupt DOJ theory is the most likely or even that the two theories are equally probable. Instead, what I meant to intimate was that the mere existence of these charges against Trump cannot in themselves be used as proof of a corrupt DOJ as they would be predicted equally by the Trump is guilty theory. This difference in conclusions only stems from differing starting assumptions, ie presuming the guilt or innocence of Trump, which obviously cannot act as starting place. In the end, I am seeing the strengths of the case similarly to how you are, but I also admit not to being an expert in this arena or familiar with all the norms of this kind of prosecution.
"This difference in conclusions only stems from differing starting assumptions, ie presuming the guilt or innocence of Trump, which obviously cannot act as starting place." I would think the "difference in conclusions" would be based on actual EVIDENCE.
I believe jury nullification is an option juries have, although my understanding is that attorneys are not allowed to make that argument to juries in criminal trials. Someone who knows for sure can weigh in. That aside, is selective prosecution an actual legal defense? It's certainly a political argument but I'm not sure if it's a legal defense. I have listened to a lot of people commenting on Trump's case, and most seem to simply assume the facts are as alleged and don't even seem to be attempting to argue that he didn't break the law. Will Trump's defense team even be allowed to argue selective prosecution? How would the Judge rule on that?
So in other words, they haven't found any direct connection to Biden, otherwise they would have said so, nor have they discovered any evidence of bribery or quid pro quo. Show me an indictment with facts like the one related to Trump and I'm willing to change my view but so far it's all just smoke and mirrors trying to make Biden appear dirty.
Interesting trends in this thread from the very few intent upon defending Trump. First, they came out guns blazin' with defenses, deflections, etc. and then when they read the indictment the tune quickly changed. Some even admitted to being wrong. Now after a weekend, they're back at it with the "but Biden" claims. I wonder if perhaps some weekend media offered confirmation bias.
Both sides are making appeals to evidence, be it Lisa Page’s messages or the pictures of Trump’s bathroom. That the two sides have access to all the same evidence and are yet coming to disparate conclusions suggests they are handling this evidence differently.
& I repeat myself: I'll even make it easier for y'all: just read chapter 2. (I suspect Comer is probably picking up the strings laid out therein, and pulling to see where they lead). Wag dose grarnled fingers from on high....
I backed off of the indictment against Trump being complete banana republic political lyncing. I noticed from that, the thread seemed to take it that Joe Biden is therefore clean as the wind driven snow. ...I chime back in, to remind that y'all's scumbucket is at least as skank as Trump--the cover just hasn't been blown off yet. But no, that doesn't amount to a defense of Trump, though the indictment against the unilateral implementation of the criminal justice system, remains.
An attorney is prohibited from arguing jury nullification as you would essentially be asking jurors to violate their oath. In the case below, the district court was going to allow defense counsel to argue for it. The government took an interlocutory appeal to prevent it and won. "Applying the principles enunciated in Thomas , we emphatically reject the rule, advanced by Judge Underhill as amicus , that district courts are free to permit jury nullification arguments whenever they feel justice so requires – in other words, in any case in which the court strongly disagrees with the government's charging decisions and the attendant sentencing consequences. As a practical matter, there is no meaningful difference between a court's knowing failure to remove a juror intent on nullification, a court's instruction to the jury that encourages nullification, and a court's ruling that affirmatively permits counsel to argue nullification. In each of these situations, the conduct in question subverts the jury's solemn duty to "take the law from the court, and apply that law to the facts of the case as they find them to be from the evidence." Sparf v. United States , 156 U.S. 51, 102, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895) ; see United States v. Trujillo , 714 F.2d 102, 106 (11th Cir. 1983) ("We therefore join with those courts which hold that defense counsel may not argue jury nullification during closing argument."); see also, e.g. , United States v. Gonzalez-Perez , 778 F.3d 3, 18–19 (1st Cir. 2015) ; United States v. Dougherty , 473 F.2d 1113, 1130–37 (D.C. Cir. 1972). District courts have a duty to forestall or prevent such conduct, see Thomas , 116 F.3d at 616, and the district court in this case abdicated its duty by ruling that defense counsel could argue jury nullification." United States v. Manzano (In re United States), 945 F.3d 616 | Casetext Search + Citator Selective enforcement is a defense. The lead case is United States v. Armstrong. United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996)
Very interesting. That was race-based, which was a hypothetical I raised to someone in a recent discussion. Presumably the same argument would hold for selective enforcement based upon one's political party? Not that I think Trump can successfully make that case here, but it's interesting to at least know it's a real defense. I presume the burden of proof for any affirmative defense is on the defendant to establish it by a preponderance of the evidence?
Not even remotely analogous to the situation involving Trump and secondly, there doesn't seem to be any indication that Robinson Walker was actually used as a conduit to transfer money from the Chinese to Joe Biden as the article is trying to imply. It's also my rational guess that if the funds were actually transferred to a bank account controlled by Joe Biden the report would have so stated rather than using the much more vague reference to "bank accounts associated with the Biden family". Just a guess but if the report is even remotely accurate the funds transfer involved accounts associated with Hunter Biden not Joe. FYI: This a description of Robinson Walker. Robinson Walker LLC operates as a law firm. The Firm represents individuals, small businesses, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Robinson Walker LLC specializes in business law, civil litigation, estate planning, and government regulations. Robinson Walker LLC offers educational resources, publications, and research. Robinson Walker LLC is located in Washington, DC. Robinson Walker LLC - Company Profile and News It's very possible that the funds transferred to the firm from the Chinese could have been transferred on behalf of any of the clients represented by firm or could have been fees paid for services rendered by the firm.
