‘RICO Is Not A Crime!’: AOC Sent Into Tailspin After Asking Bobulinski To List Biden’s Crimes

[mystery-ak]

Another candidate for the *Dumber than shit* Category


‘RICO Is Not A Crime!’: AOC Sent Into Tailspin After Asking Bobulinski To List Biden’s Crimes


Nicole Silverio
Media Reporter
March 20, 2024 2:31 PM ET
Font Size:

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was sent into a tailspin Wednesday as she questioned Hunter Biden’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski.

Bobulinski appeared before the House Oversight Committee to testify about his allegations against President Joe Biden. Bobulinski said Joe Biden knew about his son’s business dealings with Chinese energy firm, CEFC.

“Is it your testimony today that you personally witnessed President Joe Biden commit a crime?” Ocasio-Cortez asked.

“I believe the fact that he was sitting with me while I was putting together —” Bobulinski began.

“Did you witness the president commit a crime? Is it your testimony today?” she asked.

“Yes,” the witness answered.


https://rumble.com/embed/v4huj9h/?pub=4

more
https://dailycaller.com/2024/03/20/aoc-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-rico-tony-bobulinski-hunter-joe-biden-crimes/

[Smokin Joe]

First she won't let him answer, then she talks over his answers, then she reclaims her time *at which point he can't answer without being out of order) and launches off on some speech. Watch her eyes. She's reading her BS from a script. Not even sharp enough to say it extemporaneously.

[catfish1957]

This woman (though the "B" word is more apt) wants to be POTUS someday.

I think this movie underestimted  it's time line by about 400 years.

[rustynail]

She sounds like Minnie Mouse.

[catfish1957]

She sounds like Minnie Mouse.

Shame on you.  That's a terrible dis of a beloved cartoon character. 

[rustynail]

You are right and Minnie didn't talk much.

[The_Reader_David]

Well, the statement "RICO is not a crime, " is true.  RICO is a Federal law.  A pattern of behavior that fits a particular definition contained in RICO is a crime.

[DefiantMassRINO]

I'm not a lwayer, but I've watched a lot of "Law & Order" ...

RICO is a crime with underlying predicate acts.  For Biden, Inc., the underlying predicate acts would probably include conspiracy, money laundering, tax evasion, and influence peddling.

It might be easier to prove that Hunter was the kingpin than Joe.  Hunter got money, ho's, and crack.

I think it's more difficult to prove that Joe was the kingpin, because it has yet to be proven that Joe benefitted more than Hunter.  But, Joe could be looped in as a conspirator, participant, or contributor of Hunter's criminal enterprise by Joe making conspicuous phone calls to Hunter while Hunter had clients or potential clients in the room.

Legally, it's easier to make the case the Hunter was the head of the criminal enterprise with Joe as a participant, conspirator, or contributor.

RICO is not a criminal act; it is a collection of underlying of predicate acts that demonstrate the existence of a corrupt criminal enterprise.

[catfish1957]

Well, the statement "RICO is not a crime, " is true.  RICO is a Federal law.  A pattern of behavior that fits a particular definition contained in RICO is a crime.

Disagree.  In my profession and in our venacular, a RCRA violation was automatically inferred as a infraction of Hazardous Waste statutes.  Only in the pea sized brain of this bitch, thinks otherwise.

[Bigun]

Well, the statement "RICO is not a crime, " is true.  RICO is a Federal law.  A pattern of criminal behavior (multiple crimes) that fits a particular definition contained in RICO is a crime.

Fixed it.

[LMAO]

Beyond what she said, listen to and watch her

If you want to see the classic liberal woman  that’s losing the argument, there it is

[Maj. Bill Martin]

She's right about the RICO claim.

Yeah, she interrupted him, but that's because he really wasn't answering her question.  She asked him to identify the specific crime Biden committed and he wasn't giving one.  In fact, at the end, he says (paraphrasing here) "I'm not a lawyer but there are a whole lot of lawyers in this room who can better say what actual crime he committed."  Which is basically him admitting that he personally can't identify a specific crime Biden committed.

 He screwed up right at the beginning by claiming that Biden committed a crime.  What he should have said at the outset when asked that question is "I'm not a lawyer so I'll leave the technical legal definitions up to you.  What I did see was conduct that I thought was extremely shady and corrupt."

He did say "FARA" as well, but I don't think that's provable against Joe Biden.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Well, the statement "RICO is not a crime, " is true.  RICO is a Federal law.  A pattern of behavior that fits a particular definition contained in RICO is a crime.

Exactly.  It's like saying that someone is guilty of "conspiracy".  It's got to be a conspiracy to do something illegal.

[bigheadfred]

Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
This is bizarre. RICO—the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968—is most assuredly a crime.

[deb]

Shame on you.  That's a terrible dis of a beloved cartoon character. 

And all mice in general. Rats, even.

[catfish1957]

She's right about the RICO claim.

Yeah, she interrupted him, but that's because he really wasn't answering her question.  She asked him to identify the specific crime Biden committed and he wasn't giving one.  In fact, at the end, he says (paraphrasing here) "I'm not a lawyer but there are a whole lot of lawyers in this room who can better say what actual crime he committed."  Which is basically him admitting that he personally can't identify a specific crime Biden committed.



 He screwed up right at the beginning by claiming that Biden committed a crime.  What he should have said at the outset when asked that question is "I'm not a lawyer so I'll leave the technical legal definitions up to you.  What I did see was conduct that I thought was extremely shady and corrupt."

He did say "FARA" as well, but I don't think that's provable against Joe Biden.

Disagree. At least in my occupation.  In the Environmental venacular, we often mentioned "RCRA Violations". That was semi-imposed to mean anything within the constraints of 40 CFR 260- 40 CFR 265.  In audits, I would state that there are/were RCRA violations that could be further parsed into specificity.  AOC's word salad was bullshit.

[Bigun]

Ted Cruz
@tedcruz
This is bizarre. RICO—the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968—is most assuredly a crime.

 

[LMAO]

I’m not surprised that these people are circling the wagons around Joe Biden

But where’s the press?

[catfish1957]

I’m not surprised that these people are circling the wagons around Joe Biden

But where’s the press?

Complicity , and criminally silent.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Disagree. At least in my occupation.  In the Environmental venacular, we often mentioned "RCRA Violations". That was semi-imposed to mean anything within the constraints of 40 CFR 260- 40 CFR 265.  In audits, I would state that there are/were RCRA violations that could be further parsed into specificity.  AOC's word salad was bullshit.

But AOC/Bobalinsky aren't in your occupation or vernacular.   And if there was some occupation/vernacular applicable to what Bobalinsky was saying, why didn't he just rattle off the more specific underlying statute the way you just did?   Why did he instead end up saying "you'd have to ask the lawyers"?

And though I've seen this whole thing flying around conservative media, I've yet to see anyone of important actually identify the specific statutes they believe he violated.  I've also read elsewhere that even some Republicans have commented privately that they have a difficult time pinning a specific criminal violation to what Biden did, which is why support for impeachment is weak.

Look, I think she's a scumbag idiot too, and she read that prepared question poorly.  But none of that means that the general point raised was invalid.  Just because someone isn't on our doesn't mean they're wrong about everything.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

But AOC/Bobalinsky aren't in your occupation or vernacular.   And if there was some occupation/vernacular applicable to what Bobalinsky was saying, why didn't he just rattle off the more specific underlying statute the way you just did?   Why did he instead end up saying "you'd have to ask the lawyers"?

And though I've seen this whole thing flying around conservative media, I've yet to see anyone of important actually identify the specific statutes they believe he violated.  Did some GOP member of that committee follow up with friendly questions or a statement identifying the specific statutes allegedly violated?

Look, I think she's a scumbag idiot too, and she read that prepared question poorly.  But none of that means that the general point raised was invalid.  Just because someone isn't on our doesn't mean they're wrong about everything.

[roamer_1]

Disagree. At least in my occupation.  In the Environmental venacular, we often mentioned "RCRA Violations". That was semi-imposed to mean anything within the constraints of 40 CFR 260- 40 CFR 265.  In audits, I would state that there are/were RCRA violations that could be further parsed into specificity.  AOC's word salad was bullshit.

Yes... Racketeering, in the common vernacular.

[Smokin Joe]

She never really let Bobulinski answer the question. He got out a few words, but she immediately talked over his attempt to answer and reclaimed her time so he couldn't answer. Then she launched her little tirade from notecards or a script (watch her eyes).

Meh.

Maybe someday blondes will get their jokes back, but AOC has done serious harm to that genre.