Did Biden Wrongdoing Include Pseudonyms Emails?

[Kathianne]

Seems to be one of the stories of the day:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/comer-requests-national-archives-records-tying-then-vp-biden-to-hunters-ukrainian-business-dealings/

[Kathianne]

Seems to be one of the stories of the day:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/comer-requests-national-archives-records-tying-then-vp-biden-to-hunters-ukrainian-business-dealings/

continuing into today:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/08/18/biden_may_have_used_secret_pseudonyms_as_vice_pres ident.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/biden-pseudonyms-hid-ukraine-messages

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-bidens-robert-peters-pseudonym-under-scrutiny-gop-probes-emails-1820709

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/biden-probe-shifts-national-archives-discovery-private-emails-joe

[Kathianne]

and again:

https://hotair.com/headlines/2023/08/18/come-on-man-robert-l-peters-jrb-ware-wont-be-the-nominee-n572084


Come on, man: "Robert L. Peters/JRB Ware" won't be the nomineeMARK ANTONIO WRIGHT FROM NRO 2:00 PM on August 18, 2023
First, Hunter Biden’s gonzo incompetence in abandoning his “laptop from hell” in a Delaware computer repair shop has caused a drip-drip-drip of salacious news that has kept this story alive, and, to their credit, House Republicans have done yeoman’s work in uncovering one bit of evidence after another. And it’s worth remembering that the House GOP has done this work on a razor-thin margin of seats in the chamber. If a half-dozen races had gone the other way in November 2022, and Hakeem Jeffries was speaker rather than minority leader, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.


As it stands, with yesterday’s report that Joe Biden, while vice president of the United States, communicated via pseudonym — “Robert L. Peters” — with his son, Hunter Biden, and his son’s business associates, I think the time is rapidly approaching when Democratic Party leaders are going to have to make a decision: Do we ride into the next election with an octogenarian, unpopular, and increasingly tainted nominee, or do we change horses?

[They have to get rid of Kamala Harris first. There is no scenario in which Biden “retires” that nominating anyone other than Harris works. The party anointed her as The Diversity Future by putting her on the ticket in 2020, and pushing her off the next ticket in favor of Some Random White Dude will create a bitter internecine feud. And Harris is so terrible at politics that they simply cannot nominate her unless they really just want to let her lose to get her out of the way. They’re stuck with Biden. — Ed]

[SassyLady]

Maybe asking Diane Fienstien to resign. Ask Harris to take her place. Put Michelle Obama in as VP? Then the 25th Amendment? Obama then runs on democratic ticket almost as the incumbent.

Not sure how this would happen but it seems like a Democrat wet dream.

[Kathianne]

Maybe asking Diane Fienstien to resign. Ask Harris to take her place. Put Michelle Obama in as VP? Then the 25th Amendment? Obama then runs on democratic ticket almost as the incumbent.

Not sure how this would happen but it seems like a Democrat wet dream.

I've been hearing the same, though Newsome, as Obama truly has seemed adamant about not running. She did not seem to like her 8 years there.

[Kathianne]

and again:

https://hotair.com/headlines/2023/08/18/come-on-man-robert-l-peters-jrb-ware-wont-be-the-nominee-n572084

It's beyond simmer, heading for just below boiling:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/bidens-many-aliases-question


OPINIONJoe Biden's got many aliases. The big question is why
Even media admit Joe Biden lied about son Hunter. Did he play the name game, too?
By Jonathan Turley Fox News
August 24, 2023 10:00am EDT


BeyondWords
Robert L. Peters is a man with many names. "Celtic." "The Big Guy." According to congressional investigators, most citizens know him as "President Joe Biden."


Aliases are tricky things. They are sometimes innocent or essential like the code name that the Secret Service gives you as part of your protection like "Celtic."


Then there are nicknames that are preferred to your given name. Take "The Big Lebowski." He did not like being called Mr. Lebowski and preferred "Dude" but he was flexible: "I’m The Dude. So, that’s what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or, uh, Duder, or, you know, El Duderino. If you’re not into the whole brevity thing."


It appears that Biden also preferred on occasion not to be called "Mr. Biden." The question is why and whether Mr. Peters is more Big Lebowski or Big Guy.


People apparently were told to avoid directly referring to President Biden. In one email, Biden associate James Gilliar explained the rules to Tony Bobulinski, then a business partner of Hunter’s, and not to speak of the former veep’s connection to any transactions: "Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid."


So, it was not "Mr. Biden" who would receive a planned 10% cut on a deal with a Chinese energy firm. It was "the Big Guy," who also was to receive benefits like office space from foreign sources.


Recently, an FBI document showed that a trusted source relayed an allegation of bribery where Ukrainian businessman said that he was told not to send money directly to "the Big Guy" but used a complex series of accounts to transfer the funds.


The question is whether "Robert L. Peters" used in various emails was in fact Joe Biden.


The earlier email using the alleged alias is from 2016. It holds particular significance for House investigators because it cc’d Hunter Biden about Ukraine. In the now widely accepted influence peddling operation, the object of the influence was Biden.


We now know that the president lied for years in denying knowledge or conversations about his son's foreign dealings.


Even the Washington Post now admits that the president lied when he said that Hunter made no money in China.


However, these emails may show the quid in the quid pro quo. For some reason, Biden is accused of sending official information on these countries to his influence-peddling son.


The nothing-to-see-here crowd is dismissing the allegation while resisting any further confirmation of these emails. (Notably, many of them insist that the false claims of Russian collusion against Trump were established by the fact that his campaign chair, Paul Manafort, gave polling data to a Russian client.)


Yet, there are 27 emails linked to Joe Biden’s alleged "Robert L. Peters" alias including one sent from John Flynn, a former senior adviser to Joe Biden, with the White House "@ovp.eop.gov" domain name.

For his part, Peters uses "@pci.gov" domain name on a government network, which includes the Executive Office of the President.

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-KY, has pushed the National Archives to share unredacted copies of these emails and has said that the House has not received the evidence. If so, it is not clear why the archives would redact names from these emails or other information.

If that matter comes to a head, the House is likely to win in court. However, efforts to obstruct such efforts could soon be one of the subjects of an impeachment inquiry.

It is also not clear why Joe Biden will not simply make this information and his financial records available to resolve any lingering questions over his past conduct and ongoing denials.

It is not likely to happen. Joe Biden has not taken well to reporters using his aliases. When a reporter who asked him about being "the Big Guy," President Biden was irate and asked, "Why’d you ask such a dumb question?"

Yet, there are 27 emails linked to Joe Biden’s alleged "Robert L. Peters" alias including sent from John Flynn, a former senior adviser to Joe Biden, with the White House "@ovp.eop.gov" domain name.

If the answer was not clear before, it was clear after that response.

It appears that other Obama administration officials used such aliases. The question is whether Mr. Peters was doing something that Mr. Biden did not want to be associated with. He was not the "brand" being sold by Hunter, but he may have been a conduit to deliver on that brand.


The House should not tolerate further delays in answering these questions. One thing is clear. For a fictitious figure, Mr. Peters has a growing number of people eager to make his acquaintance.