Pages

Friday, October 30, 2020

The Biden Inc. Investigation Timeline

Nope, I'm not gonna provide a timeline. Jen Dyer has already done that, and commenter devilman drew Dyer's timeline to our attention:  


The laptop and the FBI investigation: The most interesting timeline you will see in 2020


There are a few details that can be added to flesh the timeline out just a bit, which I'll try to do. Dyer's basic narrative is that everything that we're now learning has to be viewed as part of a larger political struggle--but with the critical involvement of AG Bill Barr.

The context in which to view the Biden Inc. investigation has to begin with the runup to the fake impeachment. We know that Trump had long wanted to replace Jeff Sessions as AG, but had been blocked by Chuck Grassley, who was still in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee and could refuse to proceed with the hearings for a new AG. What it was that convinced Grassley that a new AG was necessary isn't certain, but it seems highly likely that already by summer of 2018 Barr had been selected to replace Sessions. The Kavanaugh hearings took precedence in the early fall of 2018, but immediately after Paul Ryan's sabotage of the GOP House in the 2018 Midterm elections Barr was nominated. 

Two possibilities for Grassley's change of heart are possible and, in the long view, may be related. The first is that he realized that if the Dems took control of the House (as they did) they would be moving toward impeachment. This was the inevitable logic of the Mueller Witchhunt. The other possibility is that by 2018 Senate investigations had already identified the motive behind the move to remove Trump: rampant Obama Administration corruption, with VP Biden's dealings in Ukraine as a focal point. Whatever the facts, by late 2018 aggressive action by the GOP was imperative. They needed a fighter at the AG post to head off what they could see coming.

On February 14, 2019, Bill Barr took office as Attorney General. That disturbing--for Dems--event was quickly followed by Barr shutting down the Mueller Witchhunt and facing down the resulting phony outrage from the usual suspects--Dems, Deep State, and their media surrogates. Even worse, Barr quickly stood up the Durham investigation. Durham, necessarily, had to focus on Russia Hoax matters that had--except for IG Horowitz's limited investigation--been covered up by DAG Rosenstein.

Fast forward a few months to July of 2019. It was on July 25, 2019, that Trump made his now famous call to Ukraine's new president, Zelensky. From the fact that Trump asked for Ukrainian cooperation regarding Biden Inc.'s dealings with Burisma, we can assume that investigation into Biden's corrupt activities in Ukraine (and, more broadly, those of Congressional Dems during the Obama Administration) were fairly advanced. 

We can safely assume that the White House itself had been involved in these investigations. In addition, I would suggest, as above, that the Senate had also been involved. Based on a pointer from commenter Anonymous last night I took a look at a report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption. A search of HSGAC documents turned up related documents, which point to a well developed investigative effort by the beginning of November, 2019. However, the results that we see in November from those efforts must have been the result of months of investigative activity. Finally, we also know that the FBI and DoJ (in the SDNY US Attorney's office) were actively prosecuting a fraud committed against the Oglala Indian Tribe by Biden Inc. associates. Was there cross fertilization among these inquiries? Was an FBI investigation of Hunter Biden proceeding separately from the prosecution of his associates? Those are interesting questions.

Trump's phone call to Zelensky was a triggering event for the House Dems. Their moles in teh White House quickly alerted them to this development. Pelosi had been opposing impeachment, which she regarded as likely to backfire politically. With the realization that Trump--and likely the Senate and DoJ--were breathing down Biden's neck she agreed that drastic action had to be taken:


The president’s phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine took place on 25 July 2019. The intelligence community leaker (referred to incorrectly by the mainstream media as a “whistleblower”) submitted his account of the phone call to the Intelligence Community Inspector General on 12 August 2019. It later emerged that Adam Schiff had known about the document forwarded to the ICIG from the beginning, and that staffers working for Schiff’s Intelligence Committee were close associates of the leaker (who, during his stint at the NSC staff, had also worked for then-Vice President Biden).


It's at this point that the Hunter Biden laptop enters the picture. Dyer demonstrates that the repairman who had custody of the laptop, Isaac, would have accepted the laptop from Hunter Biden in April, 2019, and thus would have had constructive ownership of the laptop by sometime in late July, 2019. Allowing for time to examine the contents of the laptop--after which he concluded that he needed to show the computer to the FBI--we know that Isaac, in consultation with a relative, contacted the FBI in Albuquerque (AQ) sometime in September, 2019.

According to Isaac, FBI AQ showed no interest in what he had to tell them. However, that can't be true--whatever Isaac's impression may have been. There was a delay of perhaps a month and a half--during which time the House Dems were beavering away on the fake impeachment preparations. And Grassley's Senate committee was working just as hard on their Biden inquiries. The FBI, no doubt, was also pursuing its own inquiries. But by early November, somehow--how this worked between FBI AQ and the rest of the Bureau we can only guess at--the FBI in the Baltimore office had been directed to get in touch with Isaac. When they did they quickly made a forensic copy. After examining that copy, they obtained a grand jury subpoena and took possession of the laptop itself--that would have been in early December, 2019, with impeachment expected shortly.

Now, clearly, the laptop came to the FBI as manna from heaven. Instead of painstakingly reconstructing Biden Inc.'s activities via subpoenas of financial and communication records, they now had whatever else was on the laptop, to go with their already existing money laundering investigation. Or, perhaps as a supplement.

Dyer suggests a thought experiment: Imagine that others outside the FBI were aware of the laptop in the fall of 2019. I'm not sure about that. However, Dyer's broader point, I think, holds:


Just about everything we see coming from the Left is a preemptive strike, based on anticipations we out here don’t know enough to have or foresee. But the Democratic officials, political operatives, and media figures of the Deep State have known all along who the Bidens are. They do know what to anticipate. They’re picking targets to try to get “functional kills” on in advance, so that fresh revelations from law enforcement and quality journalism will be, if not interdicted, at least pre-impugned and neutralized.

 

It appears conclusive, now, that these defensive or preemptive efforts have failed. The Covid scare and the astroturfed urban violence have also come up short. Trump is surging.

What point have we reached? Dyer believes an end game of sorts is in sight, and to that effect quotes Brian Cates (who, admittedly, has been prone to questionable speculation):

I hope all the proper loins are properly girded.

They didn't leak this to Rosen, they **handed** it to him because they are getting ready for the DOJ rollout of the case.

— Who's Gonna Be Lucky Indicted #2? – Brian Cates (@drawandstrike) October 29, 2020

In her conclusion, Dyer tries to place all this in perspective--a broad perspective, with a warning at the end:


Since William Barr became Attorney General, the Trump administration has slowly been gaining on the Deep State’s knowledge advantage. Ponder the point that the Bidens aren’t the only game in town – Clintons, Russiagate, Spygate; the Bidens are just one of many interlinked tragedies – and you begin to realize how very big and pervasive this thing is. It’s a war nobody knew in advance how to fight, but that’s what it is: a war.

In a war, you pick your battles, you pick your terrain, and you shape the battlespace to drive toward your end-state.

Indictments and convictions will be a useful tool for some aspects of taking down the Deep State, as the ultimate and necessary goal. But indictments and convictions affect individuals, not the Deep State infrastructure or its corporate will. Breaking the Deep State’s will is what will be necessary to win the Republic back for the people.


Get ready. The post election battlefield is being prepared as we speak.


19 comments:

  1. What does 'getting ready' mean? By next month, next year or 2022 midterms...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm risk and prediction averse, so I'll say 'by the 2022 midterms.' But I really think next year, and possibly shortly after the election.

      Delete
    2. Wondering same here. I wouldn't put a penny on anything from Cates, but even a blind squirrel occasionally stumbles on an acorn.

      Delete
    3. @Anon: I disagree. Brian Cates is pretty solid in my book. His early research on spygate (along w/Solomon & Sara.A.Carter) has been both solid and necessary.

      Delete
    4. But Cates did make a major error a few months ago that was talked about extensively on this board. I might have been a reader who was taken in by it. Unfortunately Bidenitis prevents me from recalling the details. Perhaps Mark has some search tool that could resurface it.

      Delete
  2. Do read the October 29th Twitter thread she is referencing as to "getting ready".

    https://mobile.twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1321931409976659975

    Obviously we can't "know" this and I like to know sources, but one can dream.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The best deals come from "The halls of justice".

    ReplyDelete
  4. On Grassley protecting Sessions, another factor may have been Trump unseated 3 sitting Democratic Senators in the mid terms.

    Plus McCains death.

    After this the Senate did less foot dragging with Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think, from published accounts, that Barr's nomination--and therefore Sessions' replacement--was baked in by late summer 2018. I would add, however, along the lines you suggest, that Grassley's resistance may also have had to do with finding a suitable replacement.

      Delete
  5. Andrew McCarthy

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/a-collusion-tale-the-bidens-and-china/

    Mark, what is your take on this article?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My take is that it's quite excellent. Note especially in the middle of the article the description of the interplay between FISA and how that affects criminal investigations.

      Given the amount of detail I wouldn't be surprised to learn that McC had some help with this article. Just because he has so much else going on right now on his usual legal beat that putting this article together would have been very time consuming. IOW, people who wanted this type of perspective available generally.

      Delete
  6. Due to operator error I need to paste in a comment that was deleted:

    @mg

    "All of you legal people need to read 'The Chickenshit Club'."

    Thanks for the suggestion.

    Here's a link to a review on amazon which appears to pretty well summarize the Chickenshit author's thesis:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1TAXG5GJ4F7EM/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1501121375

    Although this aspect of government malfeasance and/or incompetence (primarily focused on the DoJ) has not been commented on here recently, it does seem very much relevant to the larger implications of the question Mark recently asked, "What's Wrong with the Bureau?"

    I won't attempt to summarize the "chickenshit" thesis. The amazon review I've linked does a pretty good job there. Suffice it to say, that the implications are another damning indictment of the Obama Administration... which exemplified the implications of an incompetent DoJ. The implications of which we are discovering in spades today. The failure to seek justice in the aftermath of the financial crimes of the 2000s and the Great Recession can be seen mirrored and magnified in the utter corruption of the DoJ and FBI in the actions they took to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump.

    My liberal 'friends' often ask how I can support Trump. I answer: its not really about Trump. Its about the rule of law and the survival of our system as we know it. The stakes are really existential...as I see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "another damning indictment of the Obama Administration... which exemplified the implications of an incompetent DoJ. The implications of which we are discovering in spades today. The failure to seek justice in the aftermath of the financial crimes of the 2000s and the Great Recession can be seen mirrored and magnified in the utter corruption of the DoJ and FBI in the actions they took to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump."

      But is all that an indication of "incompetence" or of simple corruption? I'm not inclined to overestimate government competence, but corruption is, to me, a far more plausible explanation. The failure to seek justice, IMO, arises from the corruption, IOW, the corruption was in place long before the Russia Hoax.

      Delete
    2. Morning Mark

      Since it was my comment that was accidentally lost, I'll take the liberty of reposting it below...and then respond to your reaction.

      @mg

      "All of you legal people need to read 'The Chickenshit Club'."

      Thanks for the suggestion.

      Here's a link to a review on amazon which appears to pretty well summarize the Chickenshit author's thesis:

      https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1TAXG5GJ4F7EM/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1501121375

      Although this aspect of government malfeasance and/or incompetence (primarily focused on the DoJ) has not been commented on here recently, it does seem very much relevant to the larger implications of the question Mark recently asked, "What's Wrong with the Bureau?"

      I won't attempt to summarize the "chickenshit" thesis. The amazon review I've linked does a pretty good job there. Suffice it to say, that the implications are another damning indictment of the Obama Administration... which exemplified the implications of an incompetent DoJ. The implications of which we are discovering in spades today. The failure to seek justice in the aftermath of the financial crimes of the 2000s and the Great Recession can be seen mirrored and magnified in the utter corruption of the DoJ and FBI in the actions they took to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump.

      My liberal 'friends' often ask how I can support Trump. I answer: its not really about Trump. Its about the rule of law and the survival of our system as we know it. The stakes are really existential...as I see it.

      *****************************************************

      Mark, you responded by asking whether the shortcomings of the DoJ and FBI can be explained by incompetence or corruption and imply that I think it was incompetence.

      While I think there was more than enough incompetence to go around as experienced career agents and prosecutors were pushed out and replaced during the Obama years, I, like you, believe that corruption will eventually be proven to be a major cause of the debacles we are witnessing.

      I'll even go so far as to say it will be interesting to see whether and to what extent it is the ideological hatred of the Left for 'Trump' (power) or its corruption and criminal coverup of its corruption (greed) which is the driving force behind the Left's agenda.

      Perhaps, at the end of the day, they are two sides of the same coin.

      Delete
  7. "...ideological hatred of the Left for 'Trump' < = > corruption and criminal coverup of its corruption..." in my book, yes. Goes way beyond violating any oath of office in which one promises to uphold and defend the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good job Mark, this article was on top of Powerline Blog, with a link.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  9. O/T

    Here's an excerpt from a hard-nosed, beady eyed investment adviser's newsletter today. I think he is sympathetic to conservatives' lament over corruption, extremism and the damage to the rule of law, but at the end of the day he's all about preservation of capital.

    "It is now well documented that Joe Biden has been on the take and is heavily compromised with China. It is estimated that Joe and family have collected $30-50 million. Joe owns 5 luxury homes on a Senator’s salary. Some in the press say there is no proof from the corporate documents that Joe was party to this. They are idiots. Of course there is no record. That was the entire point of plausible deniability. Someone needs to get the property and banking records to show where the money came from for the houses, his credit cards and other bills that were paid for by Hunter who complained to his sister in an email that Dad was taking too much. The other thing that almost nobody wants to talk about is the Hunter child porn and abuse that has been revealed in the laptop. It is criminal and we can assume the Chinese have some of this and will blackmail Joe. This is the Manchurian Candidate come to reality. The press will not cover it until it is too late. Too much of the press is wanting to do business in China and is intimidated now into shutting up, just like the NBA. If Biden wins it will be a disaster for the world."

    He concludes:

    "Nobody knows now who is going to win on Tuesday. The only two pollsters who got it right in 2016, now predict Trump wins. If the Trump rallies are indicative, he has a lot of enthusiasm that Biden does not have. They are keeping Joe in the basement and at tiny events so he does not make more stupid bumbling statements, and to keep him from having to respond to Hunter questions. I still have a gut belief Trump might win. Far from clear. Most major money managers believe the S&P will trade between 3100 on the low end and 3700 on the high end, depending on who wins. That is quite a spread, but nobody is predicting a crash of any kind. I remain with a material amount of cash, and have not sold everything yet because of my sense Trump might win, and the markets rally. If Joe wins and the Dems control the Senate, I sell much more. I prefer to pay cap gains taxes now and sit on cash than wait to have to pay 62% tax, or whatever it is, and then see prices retreat as the far left starts to destroy the economy."

    I have my fingers crossed that Americans don't forget to vote their pocketbooks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "In a war, you pick your battles, you pick your terrain, and you shape the battlespace to drive toward your end-state." I wish people would leave this to the pros, and especially to the President. This is bigger than anyone imagines and is complicated by the fact that in this war you don't want to nuke the whole system and throw out the baby with the bathwater, so it must be done carefully, with precision strikes and probably in stages. Above all, the big guys must be taken out, and most of the people everybody wants in jail are relatively minor players, the hired help.

    ReplyDelete