Transcript released

[Tinker Grey]

He was not, but still subject to criminal charges for making false statements:

Mr. Mandolfo. You should also understand that, although this interview is not under oath, that by law you are required to answer questions from Congress truthfully. Do you understand that? ​

​

Mr. Archer. I do. ​

​

Mr. Mandolfo. This also applies to questions posed by congressional staff during interviews. Do you understand that? ​

​

Mr. Archer. I do. ​

​

Mr. Mandolfo. Witnesses who knowingly provide false testimony could be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or making false statements. Do you understand? ​

​

Mr. Archer. I do. ​

[aside]

I think all testimonies should be done this way. The idea that an oath would magically stop a liar from lying is silly. The only relevant thing is "if we catch you lying, you'll be in trouble."​

[/aside]

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

[aside]

​

I think all testimonies should be done this way. The idea that an oath would magically stop a liar from lying is silly. The only relevant thing is "if we catch you lying, you'll be in trouble."​

​

[/aside]​

True, but I don't think it's any "magic" associated with taking the oath, I think it's just another level of procedural responsibility that you're acknowledging and agreeing to when you give testimony under oath. Here though I don't see much of a difference because he's told he can still be charged with perjury for making false statements, so... yeah.

 

[Tinker Grey]

True, but I don't think it's any "magic" associated with taking the oath, I think it's just another level of procedural responsibility that you're acknowledging and agreeing to when you give testimony under oath. Here though I don't see much of a difference because he's told he can still be charged with perjury for making false statements, so... yeah.

Agreed. If what you want to do is have someone acknowledge what's at stake, just ask "do you understand what's at stake?"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The biggest conclusion I can draw from this testimony is that Hunter Biden appears to be a pretty talented grifter. He knows how the game is played, and therefore knows how to look like he has more influence than he actually does. He knows that his father will pick up the phone any time he calls due to the succession of tragedies that their family has suffered over the years and his own personal struggles with substance abuse and mental health, so he makes use of that. He also takes every opportunity to hint that he could be behind any favorable moves by the US government.

He's more than just a talented grifter.

Heck, one of the people who overpaid for his "art" just so happened to be a major democratic donor and just so happened to be someone who hosted fundraisers for both Joe and Kamala, who just so happened to get and appointed position by his dad afterwards.

Exclusive: Hunter Biden's gallery sold his art to a Democratic donor 'friend' whom Joe Biden named to a prestigious commission

An ethics expert said the appointment of a Hunter Biden art buyer to a US commission could raise concerns of a "quid pro quo."

www.businessinsider.com

Now, to be clear, while it it sounds like a knock on Joe, I'm not blaming this entirely on him. There's a slim chance it could've been coincidence... or a chance that Hunter said "this person is great, you should consider them for something", and Joe being a softy, could've been trying to make his son happy (as many parents would try to do). Given that it's an unpaid position she got appointed to, and more about "prestige" and "cachet"...it could've been an "innocent intentions" goodwill gesture, but who knows.

In any case, it seems like democrats are willing to overlook and downplay a lot of things pertaining to Biden that republicans wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt for...

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

READ: House Judiciary Committee Releases Full Devon Archer Transcript - Reveals Critical New Details Including Why Joe Biden Was the Reason Burisma Did Not Go Bankrupt | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee released the full transcript of Devon Archer’s testimony to Congress and it is damning.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

This article has a different analysis and point of view.

Yes, it looks like they are making things up. Since the transcripts say different.

 

[Vambram]

Yes, it looks like they are making things up. Since the transcripts say different.

I disagree. I believe Hunter Biden was clearly using influence peddling with his father to those various businessmen.

 

[Pommer]

I disagree. I believe Hunter Biden was clearly using influence peddling with his father to those various businessmen.

…and Donald Trump did nothing wrong?

 

[Vambram]

…and Donald Trump did nothing wrong?

Although Trump is far from being a Saint, I believe that he is not guilty of every indictment against him.

 

[Pommer]

Although Trump is far from being a Saint, I believe that he is not guilty of every indictment against him.

He didn’t try to get “shadow electoral college” slates from several states to put the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election in doubt? This is off topic, I’m sorry I attempted to derail this marvelous thread.

 

[Vambram]

He didn’t try to get “shadow electoral college” slates from several states to put the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election in doubt?

Members of the Democratic Party have contested the results of every presidential election won by a republican over the last 23 years. Is it OK for them to do so, but not permissible for President Trump?

 

[Pommer]

Members of the Democratic Party have contested the results of every presidential election won by a republican over the last 23 years. Is it OK for them to do so, but not permissible for President Trump?

As per my edited post above, let’s take this to the appropriate thread.

 

[NxNW]

Members of the Democratic Party have contested the results of every presidential election won by a republican over the last 23 years. Is it OK for them to do so, but not permissible for President Trump?

If you read the indictment, you'll understand how foolish that question is.

 

[Hank77]

Heck, one of the people who overpaid for his "art" just so happened to be a major democratic donor and just so happened to be someone who hosted fundraisers for both Joe and Kamala, who just so happened to get and appointed position by his dad afterwards.

From the article-

Neither of those things has turned out to be the case. Hunter Biden did, in fact, learn the identity of two buyers, according to three people directly familiar with his own account of his art career. And one of those buyers is indeed someone who got a favor from the Biden White House. The timing of their purchase, however, is unknown.
...
In July 2022, eight months after Hunter Biden's first art opening, Joe Biden announced Hirsh Naftali's appointment to the Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad. It is unclear whether Hirsh Naftali's purchase of Hunter Biden's artwork occurred before or after that appointment. Membership on the commission is an unpaid position often filled by campaign donors, family members, and political allies —

 

[Hank77]

I disagree. I believe Hunter Biden was clearly using influence peddling with his father to those various businessmen.

Yes, Archer even said he was in so many terms (the brand) but influence peddling isn't against the law and even more important President Biden hasn't been incriminated in any way.

 

[Yttrium]

Members of the Democratic Party have contested the results of every presidential election won by a republican over the last 23 years. Is it OK for them to do so, but not permissible for President Trump?

The only time I remember Democrats contesting the presidential election over the last 23 years was Gore vs. George W. Bush, thanks to the dreaded hanging chads in Florida. Once the Supreme Court ruled on it, it was all over.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Now, to be clear, while it it sounds like a knock on Joe, I'm not blaming this entirely on him. There's a slim chance it could've been coincidence... or a chance that Hunter said "this person is great, you should consider them for something", and Joe being a softy, could've been trying to make his son happy (as many parents would try to do). Given that it's an unpaid position she got appointed to, and more about "prestige" and "cachet"...it could've been an "innocent intentions" goodwill gesture, but who knows.

In any case, it seems like democrats are willing to overlook and downplay a lot of things pertaining to Biden that republicans wouldn't get the benefit of the doubt for...

It's considered "normal" for important donors to get prestige-type appointments. That's where a lot of our ambassadors to friendly nations come from (and have for decades), for example. I don't particularly like it, but it's nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's considered "normal" for important donors to get prestige-type appointments. That's where a lot of our ambassadors to friendly nations come from (and have for decades), for example. I don't particularly like it, but it's nothing out of the ordinary.

But typically those donations are through "conventional" channels like DNC/RNC fundraisers, donating to local political causes, etc...

And not "Buy the president's kid's artwork because now he wants to be an artist"

And having that happen using a private art transaction as a proxy creates some issues in terms of disclosure.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

From the article-

Neither of those things has turned out to be the case. Hunter Biden did, in fact, learn the identity of two buyers, according to three people directly familiar with his own account of his art career. And one of those buyers is indeed someone who got a favor from the Biden White House. The timing of their purchase, however, is unknown.
...
In July 2022, eight months after Hunter Biden's first art opening, Joe Biden announced Hirsh Naftali's appointment to the Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad. It is unclear whether Hirsh Naftali's purchase of Hunter Biden's artwork occurred before or after that appointment. Membership on the commission is an unpaid position often filled by campaign donors, family members, and political allies —

Some additional snippets from the article just to give it more full context

The Biden White House repeatedly made reference to that wall when responding to questions about the fledgling art career of Hunter Biden, the president's son. In 2021, when a New York art gallery debuted Hunter Biden's paintings with asking prices as high as $500,000, the White House said that his team had a process for carefully vetting buyers, and that their identities were known only to the gallery, and not to Hunter Biden himself. The messaging seemed to suggest that his art patrons came from a rarified universe of collectors who had nothing to do with the hurly-burly of politics.

Neither of those things has turned out to be the case. Hunter Biden did, in fact, learn the identity of two buyers, according to three people directly familiar with his own account of his art career. And one of those buyers is indeed someone who got a favor from the Biden White House. The timing of their purchase, however, is unknown.


Bruce Weinstein, a professional ethicist and ethics trainer, told Insider that the timing of Hirsh Naftali's purchase was significant. "If it was done after her appointment, and she likes the painting, it's less of an issue," he said. "It's more of an issue if she's deciding to buy it beforehand. Then it might be perceived as a quid pro quo."

Kedric Payne, vice president and general counsel at Campaign Legal Center, said that the question of whether the Hirsh Naftali appointment was an ethics violation depended on both the timing of her purchase and whether the art was purchased at fair market prices, or for substantially more, in which case it could be considered a gift.


So at the very least, sounds like there was small fibbing going on, and given that they're refusing answer questions about the timeline, it isn't a great look. If the timing of the purchase was such that it's exculpatory, I would expect that the White House would've been more than happy to answer that particular question. "Declining to comment" typically isn't the go-to for a person with the required paperwork that clears up the confusion.

 

[USincognito]

READ: House Judiciary Committee Releases Full Devon Archer Transcript - Reveals Critical New Details Including Why Joe Biden Was the Reason Burisma Did Not Go Bankrupt | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee released the full transcript of Devon Archer’s testimony to Congress and it is damning.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

This article has a different analysis and point of view.

That's an opinion piece by a right wing outlet that will count on it's readership to not read the actual transcript.

 

[USincognito]

"Who? Joe Biden? Who is he?"

You were asked for specifics about the transcript.

So what parts would you like to quote?

Can you answer the question?