Hunter Biden associate describes "illusion of access"

[Rumpole]

CBS CALLS OUT Dan Goldman for Lying About Devon Archer Testimony

On Monday, after Hunter Biden's business associate Devon Archer testified behind cl

www.newsbusters.org

Okay, ffine, Archer didn't use the term 'illusion of access', but it was an accurate description of what Hunter was selling, nevertheless, what I call "Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak".

But the salient point in Archer's testimony, well, Goldman was correct about it.

And here is the exact transcript, proving Gold,man was, overall, correct.

(Q is Goldman, A, is Archer):

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.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There is no proof that the sun existed before 450 B.C.
And even that is the word of some old guy 1000s of years ago.
No proof.
Therefore - the sun didn't exist then.

And THAT is the logic the OP uses.

 

[Rumpole]

No evidence Biden took bribes? What color is the sky in your world?

There is no evidence. If you believe otherwise, then produce it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There is no evidence the moon that the moon came from earth from a planetoid hitting it.
None.
Therefore it is not true the moon came from earth.
That is the logic the OP uses

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Black Death in Europe didn't happen.
There is no evidence.
We know reports that a lot of people died in that time period, but there is no evidence that it was a plague.
If you believe it - then show the evidence that is not opinion.

And that is the logic of the OP

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Outer space is not real.
There is no evidence that what telescopes are looking at is that far away, only the opinion of people's math equations.
No proof.
Show me a picture of SATCAT that is "supposed" to be almost 15 billion miles away.
No evidence.
Therefore, space is not real... and SATCAT is really only a couple hundred miles away.

And THAT is the logic the OP uses.

 

[westwall]

Okay, ffine, Archer didn't use the term 'illusion of access', but it was an accurate description of what Hunter was selling, nevertheless, what I call "Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak".

But the salient point in Archer's testimony, well, Goldman was correct about it.

And here is the exact transcript, proving Gold,man was, overall, correct.

(Q is Goldman, A, is Archer):

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.

Liar, liar, pants on fire! No, hunter was selling access all the time to every tin pot dictator out there.

And we have the proof of it.

Little liar you pokes your head in the sand and covers your ears.

In other words, you ARE NOT a serious debater, but you ARE a hack.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So we have gone from Joe didn't know a thing about Hunter's business deals to Joe had conversations but they just talked about the weather and such. What do you supposed Joe thought the point of the phone calls were in the first place?

It is amazing how the stories change as information surfaces.

Joe never met Hunter! Ever! In his life!

 

[Rumpole]

Liar, liar, pants on fire! No, hunter was selling access all the time to every tin pot dictator out there.

And we have the proof of it.

Little liar you pokes your head in the sand and covers your ears.

In other words, you ARE NOT a serious debater, but you ARE a hack.

You have proof of squat.

Selling access means access was achieved, favors given.

On that score, there is NO proof.

That is why it is not smoke, but a mirage, i.e., 'illusion'.

That is why you are completely, utterly, totally, irrefutably, full of cat shit.

And that, my friend, is the worst kind of shit there is.

 

[Rumpole]

There is no evidence the moon that the moon came from earth from a planetoid hitting it.
None.
Therefore it is not true the moon came from earth.
That is the logic the OP uses

No, here's the logic I offer.

You have no proof access was actually sold, favors given by Biden, money recieved by Joe Biden.

None.

If fact, you really do not have a clue as to what real proof actually is.

And the reason that is true is that you are stupid.

I mean, really fucking dumb, you know, the doorknob variety of moron.

You actually believe in that particular evil fucktangle called Donald Trump.

 

[Rumpole]

Joe never met Hunter! Ever! In his life!

Do you have a real argument?

No,

 

[Seymour Flops]

Okay, ffine, Archer didn't use the term 'illusion of access',

So, the whole point of your OP - that a Hunter Biden associate described that Hunter only sold "the illusion of access," and not access - is blown out of the water. In fact, Archer objected to that terminology. An accurate headline for your OP would have been "Hunter Biden Associate Objects to characterization of what Hunter sold as "Illusion of Access."

So . . . what exactly did Hunter Biden sell if not the illusion of access? Remember, he sold whatever it was for millions, literally. He sold it to some very smart and very smart, ruthless and powerful people who insist on getting what they pay for.

Which was what?

but it was an accurate description of what Hunter was selling, nevertheless, what I call "Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak".

But the salient point in Archer's testimony, well, Goldman was correct about it.

And here is the exact transcript, proving Gold,man was, overall, correct.

(Q is Goldman, A, is Archer):

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.

Yes, no one is ever going to have proof that Joe Biden took x number of dollars, and then did y that was in contradiction of official U.S. policy. That isn't how influence buying works.

The County administrator who decides to build a new bridge on the west side of the county that happens to give access to the new mall whose developer hired the administrators daughter as an environmental consultant for 1.2 million dollars is never going to say, "I made a government decision contrary to policy influenced by the money you gave my daughter."

He's going to say, "The county will derive great economic benefit from placing that bridge on the west side of town, even though my partisan political opponents claim that the east side needed it more. My daughter? I'm very proud of her tireless work to save the environment, but I know nothing about her compensation for necessary construction costs like environmental impact statements."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you have a real argument?

No,

My argument > your argument

 

[westwall]

You have proof of squat.

Selling access means access was achieved, favors given.

On that score, there is NO proof.

That is why it is not smoke, but a mirage, i.e., 'illusion'.

That is why you are completely, utterly, totally, irrefutably, full of cat shit.

And that, my friend, is the worst kind of shit there is.

And this a wonderful example of why YOU, are not a serious debater.

 

[Rumpole]

My argument > your argument

Your argument fails, for the following reasons:

Not one financial document has Joe Biden as beneficiary or signatory.

Not one LLC lists Joe Biden as an officer in a Shell.

Not one LLC has been proven to be established for a corrupt purpose as none of the 10 or so legitimate reasons have been excluded.

Not one taped phone call implicates joe in any wrong doing.

Not one testimony against Joe is backed by hard evidence.

No testimony given by Joe's staff against him.

No testimony by Joe's sons and daughters are made against him

Every email and text presented do not have Joe Biden as a participant in the conversation and third party mentions of Joe is hearsay and some have been established as fake.

The chain of custody of the laptop is not clear cut, and has the potential for corruption.

IN short, the House Republicans and those in the Senate have failed to produce sufficient predication for a criminal investigation.

In fact, all of the evidence thus far produced, only proves that Hunter Biden did business abroad, that that business is not against the law, plus the fact that he generously shared his profits with other family members, but notably except his father. There might be a FARA violation but that is not proof of wrongdoing beyond that fact.

SARs are not proof of wrongdoing, says so right on the Gov website.

FBI FD-1023 reports are not evidence, they need to be corroborated, and none have been, to date.

IRS agents are not, by definition, true whistleblowers, their testimony is merely a disagreement with the prosecutors prosecutorial decisions, in which such disagreements are common, and not only that, their testimony was impeached by Weiss.

That Yelena Baturina was not sanctioned is not a damning fact at all, as alleged, given that some 50 Russian/Ukrainian billionaires haven't been sanctioned, either, and she is merely one of many.

What I've been finding is that for every issue put forth by Republicans, regarding the Bidens, there is an innocent explanation. Oh, some things might look bad, but looking bad is not illegal.

All of the 'evidence' thus far is suggestive in nature, and not conclusive.

What you need to do is produce conclusive evidence, which would be required in order for a prosecutor wanting to indict a US President.

 

[Rumpole]

So, the whole point of your OP - that a Hunter Biden associate described that Hunter only sold "the illusion of access," and not access - is blown out of the water. In fact, Archer objected to that terminology. An accurate headline for your OP would have been "Hunter Biden Associate Objects to characterization of what Hunter sold as "Illusion of Access."

I characterize it as follows: Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak. Archer need not have said it, the characterization is a description, and nothing in Archer's testimony implicates Joe Biden, and, in fact, it exonerates him.

So . . . what exactly did Hunter Biden sell if not the illusion of access?

Archer described it many times, 'the Brand'. Which is the Biden name. It's just a mirage of respectibility by association with his father. In other words, the illusion of access.

Illusion is a product. People purchase it every time they attend a magic show.

Anyone who doesn't believe that was not what Hunter was selling isn't very intelligent.

Whenever Joe attended a dinner, or met with Hunter and his associates, no deals were discussed by Joe and his son, no agreements made, no promises, nothing, except niceties, the weather, words of encouragement. Hunter traded off his father's image and name. He used is dad as a PROP. Do I condone it? No, it's unseemly, but NOT illegal.

Why? Well, simple: no access was ever granted, no favors ever given, and there is NO: evidence to prove it, and Gilliar and Archer's testimony thus far confirms this fact.

Am I condoning Hunter's behavior? Absolutely not. But I don't care, he's a private citizen and I only care about Joe, our president, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing by him

None.

Zilch.

Remember, he sold whatever it was for millions, literally. He sold it to some very smart and very smart, ruthless and powerful people who insist on getting what they pay for.

Apparently they weren't as smart as you think. But it's not intelligence that is the thing, it's wisdom. In fact, high IQ is not required to make a lot of money, Only talent. Talent for making money and inner wisdom are not mutually inclusive traits, necessarily. Trump is the perfect example of this principle. He's clever, he's talented at self promotion, but he is not wise.

Which was what?


Yes, no one is ever going to have proof that Joe Biden took x number of dollars, and then did y that was in contradiction of official U.S. policy. That isn't how influence buying works.

You do have to have evidence if you are going to prosecute a US President. Any kind of quid pro quo, a taped conversation, a text, an email, a staffer testimony, something, yet nothing of this caliber has been produced.

The County administrator who decides to build a new bridge on the west side of the county that happens to give access to the new mall whose developer hired the administrators daughter as an environmental consultant for 1.2 million dollars is never going to say, "I made a government decision contrary to policy influenced by the money you gave my daughter."

He's going to say, "The county will derive great economic benefit from placing that bridge on the west side of town, even though my partisan political opponents claim that the east side needed it more. My daughter? I'm very proud of her tireless work to save the environment, but I know nothing about her compensation for necessary construction costs like environmental impact statements."

If you have proof of a favor that was granted by Joe to one of Hunter's clients for even ostensibly good reasons, which directly or indirectly, was to the benefit of the Bidens based on that favor, even if the reason given was ostensibly just, at least produce that much evidence.

You see, even that much evidence doesn't exist.

Not one financial document has Joe Biden as beneficiary or signatory.

Not one LLC lists Joe Biden as an officer in a Shell.

Not one LLC has been proven to be established for a corrupt purpose as none of the 10 or so legitimate reasons have been excluded.

Not one taped phone call implicates joe in any wrong doing.

Not one testimony against Joe is backed by hard evidence.

No testimony given by Joe's staff against him.

No testimony by Joe's sons and daughters are made against him

Every email and text presented do not have Joe Biden as a participant in the conversation and third party mentions of Joe is hearsay and some have been established as fake.

The chain of custody of the laptop is not clear cut, and has the potential for corruption.

IN short, the House Republicans and those in the Senate have failed to produce sufficient predication for a criminal investigation.

In fact, all of the evidence thus far produced, only proves that Hunter Biden did business abroad, that that business is not against the law, plus the fact that he generously shared his profits with other family members, but notably except his father. There might be a FARA violation but that is not proof of wrongdoing beyond that fact.

SARs are not proof of wrongdoing, says so right on the Gov website.

FBI FD-1023 reports are not evidence, they need to be corroborated, and none have been, to date.

The IRS agents are not, by definition, true whistleblowers, their testimony is merely a disagreement with the prosecutor's prosecutorial decisions, in which such disagreements are common, and not only that, their testimony was impeached by Weiss.

That Yelena Baturina was not sanctioned is not a damning fact at all, as alleged, given that some 50 Russian/Ukrainian billionaires haven't been sanctioned, either, and she is merely one of many.

What I've been finding is that for every issue put forth by Republicans, regarding the Bidens, there is an innocent explanation. Oh, some things might look bad, but looking bad is not illegal.

All of the 'evidence' thus far is suggestive in nature, and not conclusive.

What you need to do is produce conclusive evidence, which would be required in order for a prosecutor wanting to indict a US President.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I characterize it as follows: Hunter sold sizzle, but no steak. Archer need not have said it, the characterization is a description, and nothing in Archer's testimony implicates Joe Biden, and, in fact, it exonerates him.

Archer described it many times, 'the Brand'. Which is the Biden name. It's just a mirage of respectibility by association with his father. In other words, the illusion of access.

No, Archer did not say "illlusion of access" or anything like that in any other words.

Illusion is a product. People purchase it every time they attend a magic show.

Anyone who doesn't believe that was not what Hunter was selling isn't very intelligent.

It is far from an "illusion" when you have Joe Biden himself brought onto speaker phone in the middle of the meeting by Hunter Biden. That is actual access. That told Hunter's trading partners that Hunter could either 1) get ahold of dad anytime, or 2) had dad waiting for that moment, to say hi to them. The words "illusion of access" did not come into play until the incredibly partisan attorney and congressman Goldman invented it and tried to put the words into Archer's mouth.

You admitted that, but now you come back with this silly "sizzle not steak" argument, which is just a restatement of Goldman's invention. You should suggest that to Goldman, unless it was he emailed it to you?

Whenever Joe attended a dinner, or met with Hunter and his associates, no deals were discussed by Joe and his son, no agreements made, no promises, nothing, except niceties, the weather, words of encouragement. Hunter traded off his father's image and name. He used is dad as a PROP. Do I condone it? No, it's unseemly, but NOT illegal.

Why? Well, simple: no access was ever granted, no favors ever given, and there is NO: evidence to prove it, and Gilliar and Archer's testimony thus far confirms this fact.

Am I condoning Hunter's behavior? Absolutely not. But I don't care, he's a private citizen and I only care about Joe, our president, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing by him

None.

Zilch.



Apparently they weren't as smart as you think. But it's not intelligence that is the thing, it's wisdom. In fact, high IQ is not required to make a lot of money, Only talent. Talent for making money and inner wisdom are not mutually inclusive traits, necessarily. Trump is the perfect example of this principle. He's clever, he's talented at self promotion, but he is not wise.

You do have to have evidence if you are going to prosecute a US President. Any kind of quid pro quo, a taped conversation, a text, an email, a staffer testimony, something, yet nothing of this caliber has been produced.


If you have proof of a favor that was granted by Joe to one of Hunter's clients for even ostensibly good reasons, which directly or indirectly, was to the benefit of the Bidens based on that favor, even if the reason given was ostensibly just, at least produce that much evidence.

You see, even that much evidence doesn't exist.

Not one financial document has Joe Biden as beneficiary or signatory.

Not one LLC lists Joe Biden as an officer in a Shell.

Not one LLC has been proven to be established for a corrupt purpose as none of the 10 or so legitimate reasons have been excluded.

Not one taped phone call implicates joe in any wrong doing.

Not one testimony against Joe is backed by hard evidence.

No testimony given by Joe's staff against him.

No testimony by Joe's sons and daughters are made against him

Every email and text presented do not have Joe Biden as a participant in the conversation and third party mentions of Joe is hearsay and some have been established as fake.

The chain of custody of the laptop is not clear cut, and has the potential for corruption.

IN short, the House Republicans and those in the Senate have failed to produce sufficient predication for a criminal investigation.

In fact, all of the evidence thus far produced, only proves that Hunter Biden did business abroad, that that business is not against the law, plus the fact that he generously shared his profits with other family members, but notably except his father. There might be a FARA violation but that is not proof of wrongdoing beyond that fact.

SARs are not proof of wrongdoing, says so right on the Gov website.

FBI FD-1023 reports are not evidence, they need to be corroborated, and none have been, to date.

The IRS agents are not, by definition, true whistleblowers, their testimony is merely a disagreement with the prosecutor's prosecutorial decisions, in which such disagreements are common, and not only that, their testimony was impeached by Weiss.

That Yelena Baturina was not sanctioned is not a damning fact at all, as alleged, given that some 50 Russian/Ukrainian billionaires haven't been sanctioned, either, and she is merely one of many.

What I've been finding is that for every issue put forth by Republicans, regarding the Bidens, there is an innocent explanation. Oh, some things might look bad, but looking bad is not illegal.

All of the 'evidence' thus far is suggestive in nature, and not conclusive.

What you need to do is produce conclusive evidence, which would be required in order for a prosecutor wanting to indict a US President.

Again, the Biden's know how not to leave any evidence on Joe himself. It would be nearly impossible to convict Joe when they use a system like that. They did not invent it, it has been the cornerstone of organized crime since the early 20th century.

But that doesn't stop intelligent people from realizing what is going on.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Billiejeens]

Not going to waste time reading this thread.

Archer didn't say that.

 

[scruffy]

Not going to waste time reading this thread.

Me neither. Noise. Pollution.