And now, the TRUTH: Archer's actual testimony--Hunter may have sold sizzle, but no steak.

[sealybobo]

trumps business is hotels not american secrets,,,

Then why was he holding on to so many top secret stuff? LOL

 

[progressive hunter]

Then why was he holding on to so many top secret stuff? LOL

two different subjects,,

and as we know biden had 100 times the amount of classified documents,, and if trump declassified or granted himself the right to keep them which he can do as POTUS theres nothing there,,
biden didnt have that power,,

 

[sealybobo]

trumps business is hotels not american secrets,,,

WRONG. And BTW, when you look through the Biden's business ventures, what you are looking for are crimes like this

The Trump Organization, through its various constituent companies and partnerships, has or has had interests in real estate development, investing, brokerage, sales and marketing, and property management. Trump Organization entities own, operate, invest in, and develop residential real estate, hotels, resorts, residential towers, and golf courses in various countries.[6][7][8] They also operate or have operated in construction, hospitality, casinos, entertainment, book and magazine publishing, broadcast media, model management, retail, financial services, food and beverages, business education, online travel, commercial and private aviation, and beauty pageants.[9][10] Trump Organization entities also own the New York television production company that produced the reality television franchise The Apprentice.[11] Retail operations include or have included fashion apparel, jewelry and accessories, books, home furnishings, lighting products, bath textiles and accessories, bedding, home fragrance products, small leather goods, vodka, wine, barware, steaks, chocolate bars, and bottled spring water.[12]

Since the financial statements of the Trump Organization's holdings and Donald Trump's personal tax returns are both private, its true value is not publicly known, though a wide range of estimates have been made. Trump has publicly released little definitive financial documentation to confirm his valuation claims.[13][14] On several occasions, Trump has been accused of deliberately inflating the valuation of Trump Organization properties through aggressive lobbying of the media (in particular the authors of the annual Forbes 400 list) to bolster his perceived net worth.[15]

By 2019, the Trump Organization was being scrutinized by New York investigatorsfor possible financial fraud. In July 2021, New York prosecutors charged the organization with 10 counts in an alleged 15-year tax avoidance scheme. In November, The Washington Post reported that between 2011 and 2015 the organization presented several properties as being worth far more to potential lenders than to tax officials. In August 2022, the organization's chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, pleaded guilty to committing more than a dozen felonies, including criminal tax fraud and grand larceny.[16] In September 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a civil lawsuit against the organization. A separate criminal case by the Manhattan district attorney was brought to trial in October; on December 6, the organization was convicted on 17 criminal charges.

 

[sealybobo]

two different subjects,,

and as we know biden had 100 times the amount of classified documents,, and if trump declassified or granted himself the right to keep them which he can do as POTUS theres nothing there,,
biden didnt have that power,,

Trump didn't turn them over when he was ordered to. So he thought he was above the law. He's finding out now he's not.

Who did he sell top secret stuff to? Why did he have a problem handing over the documents? And is he so stupid he doesn't know lying to the FBI is a crime?
No one is above the law.

Experts say the crucial difference is intent, namely what Trump allegedly did after he learned the National Archives wanted the classified documents back.



As former President Donald Trump faces 37 federal counts for hoarding hundreds of classified documents after he left the White House, many of his supporters insist Trump is being unjustly targeted.

They point out, correctly, that Trump is not the only public figure in recent years who had classified material outside of secure settings.


But what they don't say is that Trump is the only former official who refused to return all the classified documents as soon as he was asked about them. Nor do they say that Trump is the only official who tried to prevent investigators from discovering additional classified records he had in his possession, as alleged in the indictment against him.

Trump's alleged intent, namely to keep the documents, and his lack of transparency about what he had is what elevates his case from an unfortunate filing accident to a crime, experts say.

 

[progressive hunter]

Trump didn't turn them over when he was ordered to. So he thought he was above the law. He's finding out now he's not.

Who did he sell top secret stuff to? Why did he have a problem handing over the documents? And is he so stupid he doesn't know lying to the FBI is a crime?
No one is above the law.

Experts say the crucial difference is intent, namely what Trump allegedly did after he learned the National Archives wanted the classified documents back.



As former President Donald Trump faces 37 federal counts for hoarding hundreds of classified documents after he left the White House, many of his supporters insist Trump is being unjustly targeted.

They point out, correctly, that Trump is not the only public figure in recent years who had classified material outside of secure settings.


But what they don't say is that Trump is the only former official who refused to return all the classified documents as soon as he was asked about them. Nor do they say that Trump is the only official who tried to prevent investigators from discovering additional classified records he had in his possession, as alleged in the indictment against him.

Trump's alleged intent, namely to keep the documents, and his lack of transparency about what he had is what elevates his case from an unfortunate filing accident to a crime, experts say.

if he as POTUS granted ownership of them they were his and didnt need to give them back,,

and since every POTUS before him did the same thing why is it all or a sudden important??

and what about all the [politicians that left office?? did they get raided??

sounds like another democrat witch just to me,,

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[progressive hunter]

Facebook Files: FBI Lied About Extensive Meetings with Zuckerberg's Platform About Hunter Biden 'Laptop from Hell'

The FBI lied about the extent of its communications with Facebook regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020, newly disclosed communications from the tech company reveal. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) says that the FBI's claim it only met with Facebook once about Biden's "Laptop from Hell" are...

www.breitbart.com

 

[sealybobo]

two different subjects,,

and as we know biden had 100 times the amount of classified documents,, and if trump declassified or granted himself the right to keep them which he can do as POTUS theres nothing there,,
biden didnt have that power,,

I think you lied. Biden had 6 pages of documents.

a total of six pages of classified documents were found earlier in the week during a search at Biden’s home and were handed over to Justice Department officials.

TRUMP: Roughly 300 documents with classification markings — including some at the top secret level — have been recovered from Trump since he left office in January 2021.

In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents, telling Justice Department officials they contained “a lot” of classified material. In August, FBI agents took about 33 boxes and containersof 11,000 documents from Mar-a-Lago, including roughly 100 with classification markings found in a storage room and an office.

 

[sealybobo]

Facebook Files: FBI Lied About Extensive Meetings with Zuckerberg's Platform About Hunter Biden 'Laptop from Hell'

The FBI lied about the extent of its communications with Facebook regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020, newly disclosed communications from the tech company reveal. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) says that the FBI's claim it only met with Facebook once about Biden's "Laptop from Hell" are...

www.breitbart.com

No wonder you think Biden had 100 x the number of classified documents. Breitbart lies.

In August, FBI agents took about 33 boxes and containersof 11,000 documents from Mar-a-Lago, including roughly 100 with classification markings found in a storage room and an office.

Compared to 6 pages of classified documents Biden had.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

We now have the transcripts of Archer's testimony, here.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf

Starting on page 102 of the Hearing involving Devon Archer's testimony: Lines staring
with the letter A, (for Answer) are Archer's testimony/answers to questions which are the heart of what this hearing is all about, whether or not any real access was 'sold', or whether or not foreign policy was affected by Hunter's presence on the board of Burisma, or whether or not Joe Biden benefited, financially, from Hunter Biden's presence on the Board, or whether or not Archer was aware of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden, etc.

On the issue of the 'Joe calling in on speakerphone" on page 41, Archer states:

I think you have to understand that there was no business conversation about a cap table or a fee or anything like that. It was, you know, just general niceties and, you know, conversation in general, you know, about the geography, about the weather, whatever it may be.

I'm sorry to report to you Republicans, but, although it is clear that Hunter leveraged his dad's 'Brand', he did it entirely independently of his father, and the calls from Joe did not prove Joe involved himself in his son's deals, it seems clear to me that this is Hunter just showing off to his associates who is father is, and the spectacle of having the Vice President of the United States 'call in'.

In short, Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak.

Is that illegal? he can allude to steak, i.e.,, the 'illusion of access' as it was referred to in another thread, but I don't think that is illegal. And if it is, I don't care because there is NOTHING on Joe here that proves any wrongdoing.

Hunter is a private citizen, and that's the end of it..

The worst you got on Hunter is a FARA violation. But FARA violations are not proof of corruption, it's a process crime.

Transcript, starting on page 102, noting that Biden's getting Ukraine to fire Shokin, that issue was dealt with, towards the end of this OP,

Q At the conclusion of that investigation, Senate minority staff issued a report summarizing the findings. And I'd like to read those for you.

"Every witness interviewed for this investigation testified that Vice President Biden did not alter United States foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden, and that Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy. Every witness stated that Hunter Biden and his associates had no role in the formulation of U.S. policy, that Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions, and that Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States. The investigation's evidence, set forth in this Minority report, confirms there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of" the Vice President."

Having read that for you, I have a few questions for you based on your own knowledge and experience. So based on your own knowledge and experience -- your relationship with Hunter Biden, your time on Burisma's board, and the entirety of your knowledge and experience -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that, quote, "Vice President Biden did not alter U.S. foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden"?

A I have no basis to know if he altered. I have no basis to know if he altered policy to benefit his son.

Q So you have no knowledge --

A I have no knowledge. Sorry.

Q -- of him --

A Yes, I have no knowledge.

Q -- altering U.S. policy to benefit his son.

A I have no knowledge.

Q You -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy"?

A Not directly. You mean like making laws? I don't -- I don't think so.

Mr. Goldman. Foreign policy.

Mr. Archer. No -- no -- no on foreign policy.

Q No basis to disagree with that conclusion.

A No.

Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions"?

A I have -- yeah, I have no basis.

Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States"?

A I have no basis to judge.

Q Or to disagree with that.

A Or disagree.

Q You have no knowledge -- nothing based on your knowledge or experience contradicts this conclusion.

A No.

Q Does anything in your knowledge or experience contradict the conclusion that "there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of Vice President Biden"?

A I have no basis to know.

Q The report also found, quote, "No --"

Mr. Goldman. I'm sorry. You have no basis to know or is that a no?

Mr. Archer. I have -- I have -- I would have no idea.

Mr. Goldman. No basis --

Mr. Schwartz. Are you aware of any wrongdoing by Vice President Biden?

Mr. Archer. No, I'm not aware of any.

Q So based on your knowledge and experience, you have no evidence that would contradict any of these conclusions I just read.

A No.

Q The report also found, quote, "No evidence that any action of the U.S. Government or any U.S. official was taken to benefit Burisma or Hunter Biden." Do you have any evidence or knowledge that contradicts this conclusion?

A No.

Q So based on everything you saw, heard, and observed, did you have any knowledge of Joe Biden having any involvement with Burisma?

A No -- not direct, no.

Q No involvement of Joe --

A No.

And on the issue of Biden getting Ukraine to fire Shokin:

Q And so this goes to this idea that Shokin, who was prosecutor general in 24 2015, was good for Burisma.

A Uh-huh.

Q Is that fair? Now, Vice President Biden was vocal about his concerns about corruption in the prosecutor general's office in Ukraine during this time period.

A Correct.

Q And called for the removal of Shokin from office. Is that correct?

A Yes. That was very well publicized.

Q Okay. And the Senate minority report, which I referenced earlier, described how Vice President's public calls for the Ukrainian Government to remove Shokin as prosecutor general was part of an anticorruption policy of the U.S. Government with broad bipartisan support, as well as support from allies and international institutions like the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Do you agree with that conclusion?

A Sorry. Can you repeat that?

Q Yeah. The Vice President's public calls for the removal of Shokin was part of this broad bipartisan, international anticorruption effort in Ukraine.

A Yes, I believe that was -- that was part of the conversation.

Q so do you have any basis to believe that Vice President Biden's call for
Shokin's removal was driven by anything other than the U.S. Government's anticorruption
policy in Ukraine?

A Yeah, I have no -- I have no other -- I have no proof or thought that he fired him for that reason.

Q You have no reason to believe otherwise?

A I have no reason to believe.


Sorry, there simply is no wrongdoing evidenced in this testimony regarding our president, Joe Biden. I look forward to Hunter's testimony. I'm confident it will be similar, and all you Republicans, for all the accusations, 'Biden Crime Family" Bribed Joe this, Bribed Joe that, all of you will have a tank load of EGG on your faces.

In truth, what is really going on here is a massive witch hunt in order to thwart attention away from Trump's indictments, and he will have a total of 4, no doubt, very soon. I can't help that your guy is a real criminal and ours is not, perhaps you should vote for a decent human being instead of a crook.

That's on you.

 

[sealybobo]

if he as POTUS granted ownership of them they were his and didnt need to give them back,,

and since every POTUS before him did the same thing why is it all or a sudden important??

and what about all the [politicians that left office?? did they get raided??

sounds like another democrat witch just to me,,

Yes they did raid all the others places. Pence was thrilled to have the company.

Classified documents and top secret materials don't work that way stupid. If they did then I guess Hunter and Joe/Obama did nothing wrong. Biden simply de classified everything he and hunter sold to the Chinese. And if that was wrong, Pardon me says Joe. LOL.

 

[progressive hunter]

I think you lied. Biden had 6 pages of documents.

a total of six pages of classified documents were found earlier in the week during a search at Biden’s home and were handed over to Justice Department officials.

TRUMP: Roughly 300 documents with classification markings — including some at the top secret level — have been recovered from Trump since he left office in January 2021.

In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents, telling Justice Department officials they contained “a lot” of classified material. In August, FBI agents took about 33 boxes and containersof 11,000 documents from Mar-a-Lago, including roughly 100 with classification markings found in a storage room and an office.

he had over a hundred boxs of documents,, that he wasnt supposed to have since he was totally out of washington,,

answer me these two things,,

can a potus give documents to someone to take with them including classified ones??


and are the documents he had the only copy or were they copies of them??

 

[Batcat]

We now have the transcripts of Archer's testimony, here.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf

Starting on page 102 of the Hearing involving Devon Archer's testimony: Lines staring
with the letter A, (for Answer) are Archer's testimony/answers to questions which are the heart of what this hearing is all about, whether or not any real access was 'sold', or whether or not foreign policy was affected by Hunter's presence on the board of Burisma, or whether or not Joe Biden benefited, financially, from Hunter Biden's presence on the Board, or whether or not Archer was aware of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden, etc.

On the issue of the 'Joe calling in on speakerphone" on page 41, Archer states:

I think you have to understand that there was no business conversation about a cap table or a fee or anything like that. It was, you know, just general niceties and, you know, conversation in general, you know, about the geography, about the weather, whatever it may be.

I'm sorry to report to you Republicans, but, although it is clear that Hunter leveraged his dad's 'Brand', he did it entirely independently of his father, and the calls from Joe did not prove Joe involved himself in his son's deals, it seems clear to me that this is Hunter just showing off to his associates who is father is, and the spectacle of having the Vice President of the United States 'call in'.

In short, Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak.

Is that illegal? he can allude to steak, i.e.,, the 'illusion of access' as it was referred to in another thread, but I don't think that is illegal. And if it is, I don't care because there is NOTHING on Joe here that proves any wrongdoing.

Hunter is a private citizen, and that's the end of it..

The worst you got on Hunter is a FARA violation. But FARA violations are not proof of corruption, it's a process crime.

Transcript, starting on page 102, noting that Biden's getting Ukraine to fire Shokin, that issue was dealt with, towards the end of this OP,

Q At the conclusion of that investigation, Senate minority staff issued a report summarizing the findings. And I'd like to read those for you.

"Every witness interviewed for this investigation testified that Vice President Biden did not alter United States foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden, and that Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy. Every witness stated that Hunter Biden and his associates had no role in the formulation of U.S. policy, that Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions, and that Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States. The investigation's evidence, set forth in this Minority report, confirms there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of" the Vice President."

Having read that for you, I have a few questions for you based on your own knowledge and experience. So based on your own knowledge and experience -- your relationship with Hunter Biden, your time on Burisma's board, and the entirety of your knowledge and experience -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that, quote, "Vice President Biden did not alter U.S. foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden"?

A I have no basis to know if he altered. I have no basis to know if he altered policy to benefit his son.

Q So you have no knowledge --

A I have no knowledge. Sorry.

Q -- of him --

A Yes, I have no knowledge.

Q -- altering U.S. policy to benefit his son.

A I have no knowledge.

Q You -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy"?

A Not directly. You mean like making laws? I don't -- I don't think so.

Mr. Goldman. Foreign policy.

Mr. Archer. No -- no -- no on foreign policy.

Q No basis to disagree with that conclusion.

A No.

Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions"?

A I have -- yeah, I have no basis.

Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States"?

A I have no basis to judge.

Q Or to disagree with that.

A Or disagree.

Q You have no knowledge -- nothing based on your knowledge or experience contradicts this conclusion.

A No.

Q Does anything in your knowledge or experience contradict the conclusion that "there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of Vice President Biden"?

A I have no basis to know.

Q The report also found, quote, "No --"

Mr. Goldman. I'm sorry. You have no basis to know or is that a no?

Mr. Archer. I have -- I have -- I would have no idea.

Mr. Goldman. No basis --

Mr. Schwartz. Are you aware of any wrongdoing by Vice President Biden?

Mr. Archer. No, I'm not aware of any.

Q So based on your knowledge and experience, you have no evidence that would contradict any of these conclusions I just read.

A No.

Q The report also found, quote, "No evidence that any action of the U.S. Government or any U.S. official was taken to benefit Burisma or Hunter Biden." Do you have any evidence or knowledge that contradicts this conclusion?

A No.

Q So based on everything you saw, heard, and observed, did you have any knowledge of Joe Biden having any involvement with Burisma?

A No -- not direct, no.

Q No involvement of Joe --

A No.

And on the issue of Biden getting Ukraine to fire Shokin:

Q And so this goes to this idea that Shokin, who was prosecutor general in 24 2015, was good for Burisma.

A Uh-huh.

Q Is that fair? Now, Vice President Biden was vocal about his concerns about corruption in the prosecutor general's office in Ukraine during this time period.

A Correct.

Q And called for the removal of Shokin from office. Is that correct?

A Yes. That was very well publicized.

Q Okay. And the Senate minority report, which I referenced earlier, described how Vice President's public calls for the Ukrainian Government to remove Shokin as prosecutor general was part of an anticorruption policy of the U.S. Government with broad bipartisan support, as well as support from allies and international institutions like the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Do you agree with that conclusion?

A Sorry. Can you repeat that?

Q Yeah. The Vice President's public calls for the removal of Shokin was part of this broad bipartisan, international anticorruption effort in Ukraine.

A Yes, I believe that was -- that was part of the conversation.

Q so do you have any basis to believe that Vice President Biden's call for
Shokin's removal was driven by anything other than the U.S. Government's anticorruption
policy in Ukraine?

A Yeah, I have no -- I have no other -- I have no proof or thought that he fired him for that reason.

Q You have no reason to believe otherwise?

A I have no reason to believe.


Sorry, there simply is no wrongdoing evidenced in this testimony regarding our president, Joe Biden. I look forward to Hunter's testimony. I'm confident it will be similar, and all you Republicans, for all the accusations, 'Biden Crime Family" Bribed Joe this, Bribed Joe that, all of you will have a tank load of EGG on your faces.

In truth, what is really going on here is a massive witch hunt in order to thwart attention away from Trump's indictments, and he will have a total of 4, no doubt, very soon. I can't help that your guy is a real criminal and ours is not, perhaps you should vote for a decent human being instead of a crook.

That's on you.

Of course the Chinese are so stupid they can’t figure out that giving Hunter millions of dollars will not buy Joe’s influence. Plus they keep doing just that over and over again hoping it will finally pay off.

The Chinese are a lot smarter than that.

 

[sealybobo]

if he as POTUS granted ownership of them they were his and didnt need to give them back,,

and since every POTUS before him did the same thing why is it all or a sudden important??

and what about all the [politicians that left office?? did they get raided??

sounds like another democrat witch just to me,,

But Trump wasn't POTUS when he was caught on tape showing off top secret stuff to guests at mara lago. He was even recorded saying, "I shouldn't be showing you this"

So we know he knew better. Don't try to say now he should have been showing that stuff off to his guests.

Trump was very careless with our top secret stuff and probably put lives at risk. Do you think this is the only person to sneak in and get pictures of all these documents?

Feds: Woman arrested at Mar-a-Lago had device to detect cameras

Yujing Zhang "lies to everyone she encounters," Assistant U.S. Attorney Rolando Garcia told judge during a bond hearing.

www.nbcnews.com

She got caught but many didn't.

 

[sealybobo]

he had over a hundred boxs of documents,, that he wasnt supposed to have since he was totally out of washington,,

answer me these two things,,

can a potus give documents to someone to take with them including classified ones??


and are the documents he had the only copy or were they copies of them??

Gosh I don't know. All I know is the crime was committed when he was no longer president. And like Biden and Pence, the FBI ordered him to turn in all the documents. He didn't. Why? Answer me that. That's the crime. And no one is above the law.

I wouldn't put SPY past Trump.

 

[progressive hunter]

But Trump wasn't POTUS when he was caught on tape showing off top secret stuff to guests at mara lago. He was even recorded saying, "I shouldn't be showing you this"

So we know he knew better. Don't try to say now he should have been showing that stuff off to his guests.

Trump was very careless with our top secret stuff and probably put lives at risk. Do you think this is the only person to sneak in and get pictures of all these documents?

Feds: Woman arrested at Mar-a-Lago had device to detect cameras

Yujing Zhang "lies to everyone she encounters," Assistant U.S. Attorney Rolando Garcia told judge during a bond hearing.

www.nbcnews.com

She got caught but many didn't.

 

[progressive hunter]

Gosh I don't know. All I know is the crime was committed when he was no longer president. And like Biden and Pence, the FBI ordered him to turn in all the documents. He didn't. Why? Answer me that. That's the crime. And no one is above the law.

I wouldn't put SPY past Trump.

so you dont know but say a crime was committed,, if you did know you would know it wasnt committed,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Gosh I don't know. All I know is the crime was committed when he was no longer president. And like Biden and Pence, the FBI ordered him to turn in all the documents. He didn't. Why? Answer me that. That's the crime. And no one is above the law.

I wouldn't put SPY past Trump.

the FBI doesnt have authority to tell anyone to do anything,, they are only authorized to enforce law,, ie arrest people,,

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

We now have the transcripts of Archer's testimony, here.

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf

Starting on page 102 of the Hearing involving Devon Archer's testimony: Lines staring
with the letter A, (for Answer) are Archer's testimony/answers to questions which are the heart of what this hearing is all about, whether or not any real access was 'sold', or whether or not foreign policy was affected by Hunter's presence on the board of Burisma, or whether or not Joe Biden benefited, financially, from Hunter Biden's presence on the Board, or whether or not Archer was aware of any wrongdoing by Joe Biden, etc.

On the issue of the 'Joe calling in on speakerphone" on page 41, Archer states:

I think you have to understand that there was no business conversation about a cap table or a fee or anything like that. It was, you know, just general niceties and, you know, conversation in general, you know, about the geography, about the weather, whatever it may be.

I'm sorry to report to you Republicans, but, although it is clear that Hunter leveraged his dad's 'Brand', he did it entirely independently of his father, and the calls from Joe did not prove Joe involved himself in his son's deals, it seems clear to me that this is Hunter just showing off to his associates who is father is, and the spectacle of having the Vice President of the United States 'call in'.

In short, Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak.

Is that illegal? he can allude to steak, i.e.,, the 'illusion of access' as it was referred to in another thread, but I don't think that is illegal. And if it is, I don't care because there is NOTHING on Joe here that proves any wrongdoing.

Hunter is a private citizen, and that's the end of it..

The worst you got on Hunter is a FARA violation. But FARA violations are not proof of corruption, it's a process crime.

Transcript, starting on page 102, noting that Biden's getting Ukraine to fire Shokin, that issue was dealt with, towards the end of this OP,

Q At the conclusion of that investigation, Senate minority staff issued a report summarizing the findings. And I'd like to read those for you.

"Every witness interviewed for this investigation testified that Vice President Biden did not alter United States foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden, and that Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy. Every witness stated that Hunter Biden and his associates had no role in the formulation of U.S. policy, that Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions, and that Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States. The investigation's evidence, set forth in this Minority report, confirms there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of" the Vice President."

Having read that for you, I have a few questions for you based on your own knowledge and experience. So based on your own knowledge and experience -- your relationship with Hunter Biden, your time on Burisma's board, and the entirety of your knowledge and experience -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that, quote, "Vice President Biden did not alter U.S. foreign policy to benefit his son Hunter Biden"?

A I have no basis to know if he altered. I have no basis to know if he altered policy to benefit his son.

Q So you have no knowledge --

A I have no knowledge. Sorry.

Q -- of him --

A Yes, I have no knowledge.

Q -- altering U.S. policy to benefit his son.

A I have no knowledge.

Q You -- do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's presence on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma had no effect on U.S. foreign policy"?

A Not directly. You mean like making laws? I don't -- I don't think so.

Mr. Goldman. Foreign policy.

Mr. Archer. No -- no -- no on foreign policy.

Q No basis to disagree with that conclusion.

A No.

Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Hunter Biden's role did not influence U.S. foreign policy decisions"?

A I have -- yeah, I have no basis.

Q Do you have any basis to disagree with the conclusion that "Vice President Biden carried out U.S. foreign policy in the interest of the United States"?

A I have no basis to judge.

Q Or to disagree with that.

A Or disagree.

Q You have no knowledge -- nothing based on your knowledge or experience contradicts this conclusion.

A No.

Q Does anything in your knowledge or experience contradict the conclusion that "there was no corruption, wrongdoing, or impropriety on the part of Vice President Biden"?

A I have no basis to know.

Q The report also found, quote, "No --"

Mr. Goldman. I'm sorry. You have no basis to know or is that a no?

Mr. Archer. I have -- I have -- I would have no idea.

Mr. Goldman. No basis --

Mr. Schwartz. Are you aware of any wrongdoing by Vice President Biden?

Mr. Archer. No, I'm not aware of any.

Q So based on your knowledge and experience, you have no evidence that would contradict any of these conclusions I just read.

A No.

Q The report also found, quote, "No evidence that any action of the U.S. Government or any U.S. official was taken to benefit Burisma or Hunter Biden." Do you have any evidence or knowledge that contradicts this conclusion?

A No.

Q So based on everything you saw, heard, and observed, did you have any knowledge of Joe Biden having any involvement with Burisma?

A No -- not direct, no.

Q No involvement of Joe --

A No.

And on the issue of Biden getting Ukraine to fire Shokin:

Q And so this goes to this idea that Shokin, who was prosecutor general in 24 2015, was good for Burisma.

A Uh-huh.

Q Is that fair? Now, Vice President Biden was vocal about his concerns about corruption in the prosecutor general's office in Ukraine during this time period.

A Correct.

Q And called for the removal of Shokin from office. Is that correct?

A Yes. That was very well publicized.

Q Okay. And the Senate minority report, which I referenced earlier, described how Vice President's public calls for the Ukrainian Government to remove Shokin as prosecutor general was part of an anticorruption policy of the U.S. Government with broad bipartisan support, as well as support from allies and international institutions like the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Do you agree with that conclusion?

A Sorry. Can you repeat that?

Q Yeah. The Vice President's public calls for the removal of Shokin was part of this broad bipartisan, international anticorruption effort in Ukraine.

A Yes, I believe that was -- that was part of the conversation.

Q so do you have any basis to believe that Vice President Biden's call for
Shokin's removal was driven by anything other than the U.S. Government's anticorruption
policy in Ukraine?

A Yeah, I have no -- I have no other -- I have no proof or thought that he fired him for that reason.

Q You have no reason to believe otherwise?

A I have no reason to believe.


Sorry, there simply is no wrongdoing evidenced in this testimony regarding our president, Joe Biden. I look forward to Hunter's testimony. I'm confident it will be similar, and all you Republicans, for all the accusations, 'Biden Crime Family" Bribed Joe this, Bribed Joe that, all of you will have a tank load of EGG on your faces.

In truth, what is really going on here is a massive witch hunt in order to thwart attention away from Trump's indictments, and he will have a total of 4, no doubt, very soon. I can't help that your guy is a real criminal and ours is not, perhaps you should vote for a decent human being instead of a crook.

That's on you.

Embarrassing news for us Republicans.

 

[westwall]

Claiming he 'sold it' is not proof.

You actually have to provide substantiation.

Keep spewing your talking points little propagandist. If there was one one thousandth the shit coming out that was involving Trump or his kids you brainless toads would be calling for a noose.

So go fuck yourself bootlicker.