Devon Archer confirms Joe Biden 'lied' about knowledge of Hunter's business dealings, Comer says

[SimplyMe]

You are off topic again. The fact is that Joe was demonstrative throughout his campaign that he never discussed Hunter's business with Hunter. And he maintained that position until days before Archer was to testify. Then the White House suddenly changed the story.

Actually, that poster isn't. Your OP uses Fox News as the source, which is a company that has admitted lying recently. They also defended a different case against one of their talking heads by saying that no reasonable person would believe him -- so again admitting they lie. If the source of your OP is not reliable, that calls the OP into question.

Beyond that, the person making the claims, Rep. Comer, wasn't at the hearing where Devon Archer testified. He was wrong about the things Archer stated, going off of what he previously had claimed Archer would say and not based on what was actually said. It is ironic how Republicans want to punish Adam Schiff for "lying," yet Comer continually makes false claims about the testimony before the committee -- such as the things he is reported to have said by the OP.

 

[Valletta]

Actually, that poster isn't. Your OP uses Fox News as the source, which is a company that has admitted lying recently. They also defended a different case against one of their talking heads by saying that no reasonable person would believe him -- so again admitting they lie. If the source of your OP is not reliable, that calls the OP into question.

Beyond that, the person making the claims, Rep. Comer, wasn't at the hearing where Devon Archer testified. He was wrong about the things Archer stated, going off of what he previously had claimed Archer would say and not based on what was actually said. It is ironic how Republicans want to punish Adam Schiff for "lying," yet Comer continually makes false claims about the testimony before the committee -- such as the things he is reported to have said by the OP.

The larger news outlets in particular put out a significant amount of provably false information. I remember the first time I dealt with one and the journalist finally expressed frustration and said I missed the" spirit of the story." Today that would be the "narrative." Retractions of false information are few and far between.

 

[SimplyMe]

The larger news outlets in particular put out a significant amount of provably false information. I remember the first time I dealt with one and the journalist finally expressed frustration and said I missed the" spirit of the story." Today that would be the "narrative." Retractions of false information are few and far between.

Trying to spin a story is one thing but Fox went to a whole new level, promoting something they knew was fake and promoting it as legitimate news.

 

[Valletta]

Trying to spin a story is one thing but Fox went to a whole new level, promoting something they knew was fake and promoting it as legitimate news.

The major left wing media has topped that many many times.

 

[Pommer]

The major left wing media has topped that many many times.

Which one(s) paid three-quarters of a billion dollars to an adversarial litigant?

 

[Valletta]

Which one(s) paid three-quarters of a billion dollars to an adversarial litigant?

Ah, it's just like the Trump supporters who got out of line on January 6th. Since that happened anything Trump supporters might say is not valid, all of the left wing hate speech and violence is OK. The old "shoot the messenger" tactic. Unfortunately the Biden regime is colluding with the left wing media to bury the Biden bribery and corruption scandal, so most of the stories are going to come from neutral or more conservative media outlets.

 

[Valletta]

Trying to spin a story is one thing but Fox went to a whole new level, promoting something they knew was fake and promoting it as legitimate news.

That's hardly a new level, perhaps you really don't know--I think a lot of people trust the media and it is rare for them to personally research information.

 

[Pommer]

Ah, it's just like the Trump supporters who got out of line on January 6th. Since that happened anything Trump supporters might say is not valid, all of the left wing hate speech and violence is OK. The old "shoot the messenger" tactic. Unfortunately the Biden regime is colluding with the left wing media to bury the Biden bribery and corruption scandal, so most of the stories are going to come from neutral or more conservative media outlets.

No. It’s not like that at all.

 

[Valletta]

No. It’s not like that at all.

You're off topic, if you want to discuss Fox News start another thread.

 

[Pommer]

You're off topic, if you want to discuss Fox News start another thread.

Where have I mentioned FoxNews in this thread?
(OP is sourced to the news organization in question)

 

[DaisyDay]

You're off topic, if you want to discuss Fox News start another thread.

How can a direct reply to your post be off-topic? Unless you're admitting that you went off topic first?

 

[KCfromNC]

How can a direct reply to your post be off-topic? Unless you're admitting that you went off topic first?

I've seen more than one occasion where the accusation of off topic is used to try and shut down posts which run counter to the attempted spin of the thread. Just pointing this out so that other people might notice it in the future - and ask why such a diversion would be necessary if the spin were evidence based.

 

[Valletta]

We know Joe lied, the evidence continues to show his involvement with Hunter and Hunter's business. Some oligarchs from Kazakhstan made a $142,000 payment to Hunter Biden in 2015. The next day Hunter purchased a Porsche for $142,000. Two weeks later Kazakhstan officials met with Joe Biden. To me that's bribery.

 

[essentialsaltes]

We know Joe lied, the evidence continues to show his involvement with Hunter and Hunter's business. Some oligarchs from Kazakhstan made a $142,000 payment to Hunter Biden in 2015. The next day Hunter purchased a Porsche for $142,000. Two weeks later Kazakhstan officials met with Joe Biden. To me that's bribery.

It would help if there were a link from the Hunter part of the story to the Joe part of the story. But given the context of this thread, what we have is Archer's testimony that he knew of no such link.

Q Did Hunter Biden ever tell you, "I can get my dad to change U.S. policy"?
A No.
Q Are you aware of Hunter Biden ever asking his dad to change foreign policy?
A No.

 

[Truth7t7]

Actually, that poster isn't. Your OP uses Fox News as the source, which is a company that has admitted lying recently.

Get off your Fox News false narrative, Tucker Carlson is gone, now what's you fall back?

This truth is supported by main stream media across the board

 

[Valletta]

It would help if there were a link from the Hunter part of the story to the Joe part of the story. But given the context of this thread, what we have is Archer's testimony that he knew of no such link.

Q Did Hunter Biden ever tell you, "I can get my dad to change U.S. policy"?
A No.
Q Are you aware of Hunter Biden ever asking his dad to change foreign policy?
A No.

That's correct, Archer testified that Hunter contacted Joe over twenty times when speaking with business partners. Archer can only testify to his part of the story--what he knows. For a bribery conviction it is not necessary to have a witness or a recording where the defendant agrees to change foreign policy in return for money. What is needed for a conviction is quid pro quo.

 

[essentialsaltes]

For a bribery conviction it is not necessary to have a witness or a recording where the defendant agrees to change foreign policy in return for money.

Do you have any evidence for either piece of that? That Joe changed foreign policy, or that Joe received any money?

 

[Valletta]

Do you have any evidence for either piece of that? That Joe changed foreign policy, or that Joe received any money?

Yes, there is plenty of evidence Hunter did receive money. If Joe gives the favor and Hunter receives money as a result that's bribery committed by Joe.

 

[SimplyMe]

Yes, there is plenty of evidence Hunter did receive money. If Joe gives the favor and Hunter receives money as a result that's bribery committed by Joe.

No, it isn't. The only way it can be evidence of bribery is if Joe does a favor and Joe receives money (or similar type of "value" for the favor). What Devon Archer actually testified is essentially the Hunter was selling a "con" -- he sold the idea that he could deliver his father's influence but that he didn't.

 

[Hank77]

That's correct, Archer testified that Hunter contacted Joe over twenty times when speaking with business partners. Archer can only testify to his part of the story--what he knows.

Yes, they spoke on speakerphone approx. 20 times in the span of 10 yrs. Devin heard these conversations himself, both sides being on speaker.
They did not talk about business.

For a bribery conviction it is not necessary to have a witness or a recording where the defendant agrees to change foreign policy in return for money. What is needed for a conviction is quid pro quo.

What is Joe's side of these quid pro quos? There must be more than one, different country, right?
I'm not inclined to find a parent guilty because his/her 30/40-something-year-old kid uses them to get ahead and gets them in a bind. Just like I don't blame Trump for the nonsense his kids may have done. They're old enough to be accountable for their own actions. So yea, I want some very solid evidence that Joe Biden has broken a law before I condemn him.