House releases overview of evidence against Biden

[Ana the Ist]

Comer.

Ok lol. For a second there, I thought Comey had somehow inserted himself into this thing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Putin obviously wanted it.
Do you know why we “back” Ukraine?

The military-industrial complex not only profits from our endless warmongering but so do establishment Democrats and Republicans who depend on these donors for their campaigns.

Also, non-establishment Democrats like AOC who has clearly dropped her whole idealist shtick and tows the party line for profit and tickets to the Met Gala.

 

[The Barbarian]

The military-industrial complex not only profits from our endless warmongering but so do establishment Democrats and Republicans who depend on these donors for their campaigns.

And frustrates Putin's American assets who were hoping that we'd appease his aggression instead of supporting the Ukrainian people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And frustrates Putin's American assets who were hoping that we'd appease his aggression instead of supporting the Ukrainian people.

This isn't the conspiracy theory section.

 

[The Barbarian]

And frustrates Putin's American assets who were hoping that we'd appease his aggression instead of supporting the Ukrainian people.

This isn't the conspiracy theory section.

They're pretty open about supporting Putin against America:

Pro-Putin Republicans break ranks by heaping praise on Kremlin​

Client Challenge

Russian State TV Praises 'Brave' Boebert, Gaetz Over Ukraine Stance​

Russian State TV praises 'brave' Boebert, Gaetz over Ukraine stance

Russian propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov described Boebert and Gaetz as "the brave ones" for refusing to clap after Zelensky's speech in Congress.

www.newsweek.com

​

Conspiracies are normally kept secret or are at least intended to be. Jane Fonda made no attempt to hide her sympathies. Neither do Boebert and Gaetz.

 

[USincognito]

Oh look more evidence that will be dismissed.

Let's take a look.

>> 8) On December 4, 2015, Biden business associate Eric Schwerin wrote to Kate Bedingfield in the Office of the Vice President providing quotes to use in response to media outreach regarding Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company. Later that day, Ms. Bedingfield responded to Mr. Schwerin saying, “VP signed off on this[.]” According to Devon Archer, after a Burisma board of directors meeting in Dubai on the evening of December 4, 2015, Hunter Biden “called D.C.” to discuss pressure that Burisma asked him to relieve. <<

1. The media was reaching out to the Vice President's office regarding Hunter and Burisma.
2. The Vice Presidents office reaches out to Rosemont Seneca for info in response to the media inquiries.
3. Schwerin provides if.
Not really seeing the nefarious deeds here. Without knowing what the quotes were, I don't even know if this is evidence of Joe's awareness of Hunters business dealings, much less the details of his business dealings.

As for the call, let's look at Archer's transcript.
BY MR. MANDOLFO:
Q What did Hunter Biden do after he was given that request?
A Listen, I did not hear this phone call, but he -- he called his dad.
Q How do you know that?
A Because he -- because I think Vadym told me. But, again, it's unclear. I just know that there was a call that happened there and I was not privy to it.
Q What did Vadym tell you about the call?
A Just that -- just that they -- "We called D.C." But he didn't -- you know, again, it's not like the -- there was not a -- there was not, "Oh, we've got all our problems solved" kind of, you know, revelation. I was -- I was not on that side of the equation and kind of working on the lobbying side of the business.
Q When Vadym told you this, where were you?
A I was -- you know, basically what -- then we drove back to the hotel I was staying at.
Q Who's "we"?
A Me, Vadym, and Mykola.
Q Was it during that drive back that Vadym told you that Hunter Biden had called VP Biden at that time?
A It would have been at some point there or after. You know, maybe the next day. Again, we spent -- you know, on a board trip where you travel with people from all over the world, we spent 3 days together. So the exact time I can't say, but that was the -- that was the -- that was -- that's what happened.
Mr. Schwartz - He told you expressly he called his father or that he called D.C.?
Mr. Archer - D.C., D.C.

So Archer is saying that someone else told him that Hunter called D.C. but did not specify if it was the to the Vice President or not.

 

[The Barbarian]

So Archer is saying that someone else told him that Hunter called D.C. but did not specify if it was the to the Vice President or not.

This kind of thing shows how desperate the republicans are to create a diversion to protect Beloved Leader.

 

[Aldebaran]

And frustrates Putin's American assets who were hoping that we'd appease his aggression instead of supporting the Ukrainian people.


They're pretty open about supporting Putin against America:

Pro-Putin Republicans break ranks by heaping praise on Kremlin​

Client Challenge

Russian State TV Praises 'Brave' Boebert, Gaetz Over Ukraine Stance​

Russian State TV praises 'brave' Boebert, Gaetz over Ukraine stance

Russian propagandist Dmitry Kiselyov described Boebert and Gaetz as "the brave ones" for refusing to clap after Zelensky's speech in Congress.

www.newsweek.com

​

Conspiracies are normally kept secret or are at least intended to be. Jane Fonda made no attempt to hide her sympathies. Neither do Boebert and Gaetz.

Accusations and name calling by a pair of left-leaning publications is hardly solid evidence that supports your assertion.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Accusations and name calling by a pair of left-leaning publications is hardly solid evidence that supports your assertion.

Yeah, all those communists at the Financial Times.

Analysis / Bias​

In review, the Financial Times primarily reports economic news with a minimally biased tone ... Editorially, the Financial Times sticks to economics and how politics impacts it. There is, again, minimal bias in reporting. ... In general, FT reports straight news with minimal bias and proper sourcing.

 

[The Barbarian]

Accusations and name calling by a pair of left-leaning publications

The events are well-documented. But I see the objection has already been debunked.

 

[The Barbarian]

Not saying that Jane Fonda or Lauren Boebert or Matt Gaetz don't have the right to verbally support our enemies. It's just pretty sad commentary on them as Americans.

 

[rjs330]

The only testimony i've seen on the subject (Devon Archer's) says that no business was discussed.

Riiiight. Yeah I believe that. Totally.

 

[rjs330]

It's cute how you conflated these two things. President Biden and Hunter speak on the phone every day. About 20 times, the call happened to coincide with one of hunters business meetings. It's not like the then Vice President was calling specifically during the or for the business call.

Devon Archer said no business was discussed during those calls.

Right they speak on the phone everyday. Sometimes even when Hunter is in an important business meeting talking on the speaker phone where people can hear. How do you know he's not calling specifically during the meeting. Especially when afterward Hunter got what he wanted?

And they are soooo close that they talk every single day, but they are not close enough to discuss anything about business dealing where Biden called during g the meeting. Or any other time.

And somehow Devon Archer knows about every conversation and was privy to all of it?

It sounds like Archer wasnt actually there for any conversations of the sort.

You actually believe all that?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Right they speak on the phone everyday. Sometimes even when Hunter is in an important business meeting talking on the speaker phone where people can hear. How do you know he's not calling specifically during the meeting. Especially when afterward Hunter got what he wanted?

And they are soooo close that they talk every single day, but they are not close enough to discuss anything about business dealing where Biden called during g the meeting. Or any other time.

And somehow Devon Archer knows about every conversation and was privy to all of it?

It sounds like Archer wasnt actually there for any conversations of the sort.

You actually believe all that?

Your logical fallacy is: Argument From Incredulity

Just because you don't believe something does not mean that it is not true.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Riiiight. Yeah I believe that. Totally.

So you prefer the imaginary testimony in your head over the actual sworn testimony?

It sounds like Archer wasnt actually there for any conversations of the sort.

Were you privy to any conversations of the sort? Was anyone?

 

[Pommer]

Riiiight. Yeah I believe that. Totally.

He was the “star witness” though, the one who was going to shovel all of the dirt on the Bidens
He tanked the investigation. I’d not pay attention to him either!

 

[Pommer]

Right they speak on the phone everyday. Sometimes even when Hunter is in an important business meeting talking on the speaker phone where people can hear. How do you know he's not calling specifically during the meeting. Especially when afterward Hunter got what he wanted?

And they are soooo close that they talk every single day, but they are not close enough to discuss anything about business dealing where Biden called during g the meeting. Or any other time.

And somehow Devon Archer knows about every conversation and was privy to all of it?

It sounds like Archer wasnt actually there for any conversations of the sort.

You actually believe all that?

I believe that when they ask a witness about things that they personally remember, it is understood that conversations that they weren’t privy to are not going to be in the scope of the questions being asked.

 

[KCfromNC]

Riiiight. Yeah I believe that. Totally.

I appreciate how quickly the talking points need to retreat from "look at all the evidnce" to "don't believe the evidence".

 

[rjs330]

I appreciate how quickly the talking points need to retreat from "look at all the evidnce" to "don't believe the evidence".

So the fact that Archer isn't privy to the conversations and and yet it is claimed that there were no conversations and Archer is a supposed witness to the conversations when he wasn't there is somehow evidence I'm supposed to believe? You been shown a lot of evidence in regards to all the influence peddling that Biden was involved in. Yet you want to get focused deeply on what Archer said. Yet dismiss the fact that Archer wasn't there? But his evidence is far stronger than the evidence of Biden actually making the phone calls and being in speaker phone and being so close as to talk everyday and the claims he is very close to his son etc. That evidence is worthless to you. But the evidence of someone who actually doesn't know is most valuable?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So the fact that Archer isn't privy to the conversations and and yet it is claimed that there were no conversations and Archer is a supposed witness to the conversations when he wasn't there is somehow evidence I'm supposed to believe?

No, you're only required to believe the evidence that has been presented of Hunter/Joe calls while Hunter business partners were present. Namely, Devon Archer's testimony that no business was discussed.

This thread is about the "evidence against Biden". Archer's testimony does not implicate Joe Biden in shenanigans. For any other hypothetical conversations, we have seen no evidence they occurred, much less what their hypothetical content might be.

It is not my burden to exonerate Joe Biden of every possible evidence-free hypothetical. It is this thread's burden to provide "evidence against Biden".

--

Also, let us cast our minds back to before Devon Archer testified. The forum was hopping with salivating threads such as:

Inside Biden deals: Business cohort jilted by Bidens after federal bust ready to testify to Congress​

Devon Archer ... will likely be in no mood to shield the first family from incrimination in shady foreign deals.

And yet Archer's testimony did not incriminate Joe Biden. It provided no "evidence against Biden".

Hunter Biden put then-VP dad Joe on the phone with business associates at least 2 dozen times, ex-partner Devon Archer to testify​

I just don't think Joe's statement about never discussing Hunter's business dealing with Hunter is going to stand.

And yet Archer's testimony supports Joe's statement.

Biden’s role in family business deals grows harder to deny​

looming testimony from a former associate could make it harder for the White House to refute charges of influence peddling and bribery.

And yet Archer's testimony denied it.

--

These things being rolled out by Comer's committee were kicked around on these forums months ago when they fizzled out.