Transcript released

[USincognito]

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

You can believe whatever you want, but reality doesn't have to bend to the will of your beliefs. As Archer confirmed, Hunter was using the illusion of access to Joe Biden, but there was never any involvement by him in "the brand".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

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"

As the article points out, it's unclear when she purchased the artwork, and she was already a significant donor through conventional channels before that, so I think you may be jumping to conclusions here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

…and Donald Trump did nothing wrong?

That's not the question.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As the article points out, it's unclear when she purchased the artwork, and she was already a significant donor through conventional channels before that, so I think you may be jumping to conclusions here.

As the article mentions, despite her donating through the existing channels, depending on what Hunter's using the money for (and if it was purchased for an amount that most would feel is excessive, even with the subjectivity of art), it creates problems as that could be a way to circumnavigate certain rules with regards to the nature of political donations and the limits/caps on them.

For instance, if you started your own campaign and the laws dictated I could only donate, let's say $20,000 max.

Buying a piece of art work from someone close to you for 10 times that amount (and that person, in turn, gives the money to several other people, who can then each make their own $20,000 donation as a result), that could make for a messy situation.

That's why the political ethics analyst in the article stated:
"Legally, you might not have a problem," he said. "But with the appearance, it's a lot to try and explain."


The article also makes reference to the fact that while art is subjective, it's relatively rare that someone with no track record as an artist is going to be able to move $1.3 million dollars worth of art so easily with ever having a museum show or gallery shows prior to that. Or more succinctly, it's very uncommon for someone to have that kind of fiscal success in art when just starting out in their artistic endeavors.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

As the article mentions, despite her donating through the existing channels, depending on what Hunter's using the money for (and if it was purchased for an amount that most would feel is excessive, even with the subjectivity of art), it creates problems as that could be a way to circumnavigate certain rules with regards to the nature of political donations and the limits/caps on them.

For instance, if you started your own campaign and the laws dictated I could only donate, let's say $20,000 max.

Buying a piece of art work from someone close to you for 10 times that amount (and that person, in turn, gives the money to several other people, who can then each make their own $20,000 donation as a result), that could make for a messy situation.

That's why the political ethics analyst in the article stated:
"Legally, you might not have a problem," he said. "But with the appearance, it's a lot to try and explain."


The article also makes reference to the fact that while art is subjective, it's relatively rare that someone with no track record as an artist is going to be able to move $1.3 million dollars worth of art so easily with ever having a museum show or gallery shows prior to that. Or more succinctly, it's very uncommon for someone to have that kind of fiscal success in art when just starting out in their artistic endeavors.

All of that is a separate issue from the one that we were discussing. It's also off-topic for the thread, which is about Devon Archer's testimony. I don't recall seeing anything in the transcript about Hunter Biden's art career.

 

[Vambram]

You can believe whatever you want, but reality doesn't have to bend to the will of your beliefs. As Archer confirmed, Hunter was using the illusion of access to Joe Biden, but there was never any involvement by him in "the brand".

The "illusion of access" is classic influence peddling. That is reality.

 

[Pommer]

The "illusion of access" is classic influence peddling. That is reality.

If “only the mark gets took” it’s not influence peddling since no influence is being employed in this case.

 

[USincognito]

The "illusion of access" is classic influence peddling. That is reality.

There's nothing illegal about a child dealing in the illusion of influence peddling with a parent.

There simply is no there there. It's been 3 years since the supposed laptop from h e double hockey sticks and nothing substantial has come from it. Just a drug addict chronicling his descent into madness.

Comer's clown show this week was just the latest example of the right wing promising the moon and delivering a nothing burger.

 

[Vambram]

There's nothing illegal about a child dealing in the illusion of influence peddling with a parent.

There simply is no there there. It's been 3 years since the supposed laptop from h e double hockey sticks and nothing substantial has come from it. Just a drug addict chronicling his descent into madness.

Comer's clown show this week was just the latest example of the right wing promising the moon and delivering a nothing burger.

If the laptop wasn't a big negative against the Bidens, then why did Big tech suppress and censor information about it at the behest of the FBI?

 

[Vambram]

If “only the mark gets took” it’s not influence peddling since no influence is being employed in this case.

What does the Biden quote to the Ukraine government, "if you don't fire the prosecutor, you won't get the billion dollars", mean to you?

 

[JosephZ]

What does the Biden quote to the Ukraine government, "if you don't fire the prosecutor, you won't get the billion dollars", mean to you?

Then Vice President Biden was simply carrying out U.S. policy. The International Monetary Fund threatened to withhold even more ($40 billion) if the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, wasn't removed.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The "illusion of access" is classic influence peddling. That is reality.

Feel free to lock Hunter up for fraudulently peddling influence his dad was unaware of and not providing.

 

[Pommer]

If the laptop wasn't a big negative against the Bidens, then why did Big tech suppress and censor information about it at the behest of the FBI?

Because it’s provenance was suspect.

 

[Pommer]

What does the Biden quote to the Ukraine government, "if you don't fire the prosecutor, you won't get the billion dollars", mean to you?

Yes, we gave Ukraine money with the condition that they have the corrupt prosecutor (who wasn’t prosecuting), fired.
So what?

 

[USincognito]

If the laptop wasn't a big negative against the Bidens,

You mean the October Surprise that was meant to sway the election mainly from the salacious photos of Hunter in the depths of drug addiction?

then why did Big tech suppress and censor information about it at the behest of the FBI?

That didn't happen. The FBI - don't forget, Donald's FBI at the time - alerted social media companies to be on the lookout for Russian disinformation. When the supposed "laptop" was unleashed as an October Surprise, social media companies correctly saw it for what it was.

 

[USincognito]

What does the Biden quote to the Ukraine government, "if you don't fire the prosecutor, you won't get the billion dollars", mean to you?

It means everything you "know" about the situation, you got from the Conservisphere and not from reality. I suggest you read this thread.

Let's talk about Joe Biden getting Viktor Shokin fired

Since this falsehood/historical revisionism has been cropping up numerous times and Rep. Taylor Greene repeated it in the House chambers last week, let's try putting this baby to bed at least in this section of CF. It's been almost 3 years. It's time to stop with the nonsense. 1. The most...

www.christianforums.com