ADVERTISEMENT

News coverage on a Monday for Devon Archer

DawgWCK

Letterman and National Champion
Gold Member
Aug 12, 2001
2,524
3,245
197
CBS and NBC - no on-line coverage at all
Drudge - no on-line coverage at all (all they cover is anti Trump)
CNN - a blurb buried at bottom of their political coverage
Fox - top story all weekend and Monday

I assume this Archer guy is going to say Joe is lying and he was heavily involved in Hunters business dealings. Regardless, we would hope this story would be covered at some detail by all the networks. I personally feel Fox has over covered it and the other networks have grossly under covered it. This story alone could be the poster child for where our main stream media currently stands and why they are no longer trusted
 
CBS and NBC - no on-line coverage at all
Drudge - no on-line coverage at all (all they cover is anti Trump)
CNN - a blurb buried at bottom of their political coverage
Fox - top story all weekend and Monday

I assume this Archer guy is going to say Joe is lying and he was heavily involved in Hunters business dealings. Regardless, we would hope this story would be covered at some detail by all the networks. I personally feel Fox has over covered it and the other networks have grossly under covered it. This story alone could be the poster child for where our main stream media currently stands and why they are no longer trusted
Yet only one of those listed had to pay out nearly $800m in the second larger ever defamation settlement for lying about election fraud, right?

I suspect Archer is going to share that Hunter made many promises about his father’s involvement, which even the biggest Biden defenders have to acknowledge is likely at this point. It will get interesting if Archer can show that Hunter ever delivered on his promise.
 
Yet only one of those listed had to pay out nearly $800m in the second larger ever defamation settlement for lying about election fraud, right?

I suspect Archer is going to share that Hunter made many promises about his father’s involvement, which even the biggest Biden defenders have to acknowledge is likely at this point. It will get interesting if Archer can show that Hunter ever delivered on his promise.
I have no real cozy feeling for Fox, only program I watch is Kurtz who does a show on the media. I’m more interested in balanced coverage. This is a significant story that needs to be covered. It’s as valid at this point as Russian Collusion but not being covered with the same tenacity. Fox prior liability has no relevance on this issue.
 
Yet only one of those listed had to pay out nearly $800m in the second larger ever defamation settlement for lying about election fraud, right?

I suspect Archer is going to share that Hunter made many promises about his father’s involvement, which even the biggest Biden defenders have to acknowledge is likely at this point. It will get interesting if Archer can show that Hunter ever delivered on his promise.
It is unbelievable that the country’s mainstream media are not covering an event of this importance and your use of the Fox settlement to attempt to legitimize their decisions to cover it up tells all who the biggest Biden defender on this board is. It makes no sense, Will.

I also doubt Archer drops any real bombshells, but the fact that this is occurring should be major news. If nothing else it will show what a liar the president is and lead to questions why he has been lying so vocally, even screaming at times. You should try some other news sources, imo.
 
CBS and NBC - no on-line coverage at all
Drudge - no on-line coverage at all (all they cover is anti Trump)
CNN - a blurb buried at bottom of their political coverage
Fox - top story all weekend and Monday

I assume this Archer guy is going to say Joe is lying and he was heavily involved in Hunters business dealings. Regardless, we would hope this story would be covered at some detail by all the networks. I personally feel Fox has over covered it and the other networks have grossly under covered it. This story alone could be the poster child for where our main stream media currently stands and why they are no longer trusted
A potus shaking down foreign countries for bribes can't be over covered. Treasonous.
 
A couple of what ifs:
What if biden has been blackmailed by China to push EV, solar and other Green New Deal crap which benefits China enormously?
What if Zelinsky is blackmailing Biden for cash and military equipment?
What if China is onboard with the Zelinsky shakedown? No US bullets left when China storms Taiwan?
What if China has blackmailed Biden into reckless fiscal policy to destroy the dollar’s standing as the global currency to be replaced by the yuan?

What if Biden is as big of a senile old fool as he appears and has gotten himself into the mess with the help of his half retarded kid? What if Obama put Biden in charge of Ukraine in order to orchestrate the corruption and diminishment of American standing?

It would be bad, that’s what if.
 
Cover up just like usual. Who is really going to believe a felon one way or another? If they wanted to hear what was on the calls, they could.
 
"While there had been an investigation of the company, Shokin's former deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, has said that it was dormant at the time of Joe Biden's intervention. (The former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, George Kent, testified in Trump's impeachment inquiry that Shokin was corrupt; the US and its allies had made a coordinated effort to oust him.)"

Is this true or false?

 
"While there had been an investigation of the company, Shokin's former deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, has said that it was dormant at the time of Joe Biden's intervention. (The former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, George Kent, testified in Trump's impeachment inquiry that Shokin was corrupt; the US and its allies had made a coordinated effort to oust him.)"

Is this true or false?

Maybe Shokin was horribly corrupt and was shaking down Burisma for more than the ten million Burisma had to pay the Bidens to get rid of him. And CNN is a joke of a source. Total laughingstock of American journalism.
 
"Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who was present during the questioning of Archer, spoke to the press after and downplayed any substantial connection between Joe Biden and Hunter Biden’s business dealings, saying the phone calls were only friendly. After his statement, Goldman took questions from reporters. An off-camera reporter asked if the alleged “$5 million bribe” paid to Hunter Biden ever came up “Yes. Thank you for doing that. So we did bring up the FD-1023 and he categorically said that he was unaware, had no knowledge of any $5 million payment made to either Hunter Biden or to Joe Biden and would be shocked if that actually existed,” Goldman replied.""


 
"While there had been an investigation of the company, Shokin's former deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, has said that it was dormant at the time of Joe Biden's intervention. (The former US ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, George Kent, testified in Trump's impeachment inquiry that Shokin was corrupt; the US and its allies had made a coordinated effort to oust him.)"

Is this true or false?


No idea what's ultimately true. But, the FD-1023 recently released by Grassley quotes a "highly credible" source that reported a criminal scheme involving then-VP Joe Biden and Burisma. According to the FD-1023 summary, Burisma’s owner specifically referenced the firing of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Among the sources's conversations with Burisma’s owner, shortly after Biden made his first public statement about Shokin “being corrupt”, Shokin was investigating Burisma, and Zlochevsky told the source that “Hunter will take care of all of those issues through his dad.”

But after the 2016 election, the source talked again with Zlochevsky, who noted that “Shokin had already been fired, and no investigation was currently going on…” That's apparently significant because Biden has claimed he pushed for Shokin’s firing because Shokin was not investigating Burisma, which is the opposite of what's detailed in the FD-1023.

LINK

I guess it's a question of who's telling the truth.
 
No idea what' s ultimately true. But, the FD-1023 recently released by Grassley quotes a "highly credible" source that reported a criminal scheme involving then-VP Joe Biden and Burisma. According to the FD-1023 summary, Burisma’s owner specifically referenced the firing of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Among the sources's conversations with Burisma’s owner, shortly after Biden made his first public statement about Shokin “being corrupt”, Shokin was investigating Burisma, and Zlochevsky told the source that “Hunter will take care of all of those issues through his dad.”

But after the 2016 election, the source talked again with Zlochevsky, who noted that “Shokin had already been fired, and no investigation was currently going on…” That's apparently significant because Biden has claimed he pushed for Shokin’s firing because Shokin was not investigating Burisma, which is the opposite of what's detailed in the FD-1023.

LINK

I guess it's a question of who's telling the truth.
Don’t blow his mind with new information not covered on CNN.
 
A couple of what ifs:
What if biden has been blackmailed by China to push EV, solar and other Green New Deal crap which benefits China enormously?
What if Zelinsky is blackmailing Biden for cash and military equipment?
What if China is onboard with the Zelinsky shakedown? No US bullets left when China storms Taiwan?
What if China has blackmailed Biden into reckless fiscal policy to destroy the dollar’s standing as the global currency to be replaced by the yuan?

What if Biden is as big of a senile old fool as he appears and has gotten himself into the mess with the help of his half retarded kid? What if Obama put Biden in charge of Ukraine in order to orchestrate the corruption and diminishment of American standing?

It would be bad, that’s what if.





these dudes look a tad stoned.
oh well...!?
pug joins insanity quite often...


 
Last edited:
Yet only one of those listed had to pay out nearly $800m in the second larger ever defamation settlement for lying about election fraud, right?

To be fair, though: MSNBC/NBC, CNN, & the Washington Post all settled for large amounts w/ Nicholas Sandman. Lying is lying, imo. I don't believe any corporate news company is free of inappropriate influence from either political ideology or profit.
 
To be fair, though: MSNBC/NBC, CNN, & the Washington Post all settled for large amounts w/ Nicholas Sandman. Lying is lying, imo. I don't believe any corporate news company is free of inappropriate influence from either political ideology or profit.
Yea. I was going to look for all that and got sidetracked today. Anderson Cooper had two defamation suits out there for a bit. Madcow had so many going on they scaled her back to one day a week.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Moosefish
No idea what's ultimately true. But, the FD-1023 recently released by Grassley quotes a "highly credible" source that reported a criminal scheme involving then-VP Joe Biden and Burisma. According to the FD-1023 summary, Burisma’s owner specifically referenced the firing of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Among the sources's conversations with Burisma’s owner, shortly after Biden made his first public statement about Shokin “being corrupt”, Shokin was investigating Burisma, and Zlochevsky told the source that “Hunter will take care of all of those issues through his dad.”

But after the 2016 election, the source talked again with Zlochevsky, who noted that “Shokin had already been fired, and no investigation was currently going on…” That's apparently significant because Biden has claimed he pushed for Shokin’s firing because Shokin was not investigating Burisma, which is the opposite of what's detailed in the FD-1023.

LINK

I guess it's a question of who's telling the truth.
I think it is pretty safe to say something sideways was going on. Joe had to know about it too. It seems like common sense would be the easy sell here. They know who paid. Did things get better for them after the payoff?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moosefish
I think it is pretty safe to say something sideways was going on. Joe had to know about it too. It seems like common sense would be the easy sell here. They know who paid. Did things get better for them after the payoff?
Know about what, what is it? You guys have yet to even show a crime was committed
 
Yet only one of those listed had to pay out nearly $800m in the second larger ever defamation settlement for lying about election fraud, right?

I suspect Archer is going to share that Hunter made many promises about his father’s involvement, which even the biggest Biden defenders have to acknowledge is likely at this point. It will get interesting if Archer can show that Hunter ever delivered on his promise.
will, not covering a congressional hearing on the legalities of a sitting President is OK because one of the networks paid a settlement?

No one can ever be held accountable for anything because someone did something wrong before.

Our society cannot function this way. Each and every news story is a news story. Guilty or not.

Ignoring news is wrong. Just say what is happening and leave out the opinion.

Whether Hunter and Joe are guilty or not, it’s newsworthy when allegations such as this are made.

Same with Trump. Tell it. Just leave the conviction to the courts.
 
  • Love
Reactions: zingerdawg
Know about what, what is it? You guys have yet to even show a crime was committed
Did I say crime? You love putting words in my mouth. In hunters own words he is peddling influence. Even if daddy by some sort of oj Simpson miracle isn’t involved. They have already tracked the money. I think that part is done.

If Eric trump was on tape saying don’t let me get big don involved. You know he brings the hammer. You would be losing your ever loving mind. I think that narrative is over for you. Take the L. At the very least it is some form of extortion. Smfh. Shit. You guys would need to be giving Mitchell oxygen if that happened.
 
Last edited:
Andy Biggs dejectedly said Archer knew nothing about Joe Biden involved with bribes. Case closed!
What?!?! Archer not having knowledge of the bribery scheme just means that Archer didn't have knowledge of the bribery scheme...that doesn't "clear" anybody. Biggs also said:

A reporter asked if the president is “compromised,” leading Biggs to say “I think so.”

“We’ll continue to do our due diligence and our research,” Biggs said.

“Devon Archer said that was an implication of who the ‘the big guy’ is, and Archer talked about the Big Guy and how Hunter Biden always said ‘we need to talk to my guy and see when my guy’s gonna be here’ and those types of things,” Biggs said.

Your summary of what Biggs said/insinuated is silly. It took a 2-second of google research to find out Biggs' actual opinion on what he heard today.
 
I have no real cozy feeling for Fox, only program I watch is Kurtz who does a show on the media. I’m more interested in balanced coverage. This is a significant story that needs to be covered. It’s as valid at this point as Russian Collusion but not being covered with the same tenacity. Fox prior liability has no relevance on this issue.
Well look at News Max
 
I have no real cozy feeling for Fox, only program I watch is Kurtz who does a show on the media. I’m more interested in balanced coverage. This is a significant story that needs to be covered. It’s as valid at this point as Russian Collusion but not being covered with the same tenacity. Fox prior liability has no relevance on this issue.
This is where we are. It should scare the bejesus out of everyone. The media is helping the government or sitting president control the narrative. No matter what turns out to the be the truth. Just like the indictment of trump, this is an enormous story. Should be one of the biggest political stories in our lifetime. No coverage of biden’s issues. Round the clock coverage of the indictments concerning a political opponent. We are in a very dangerous place. Right now fox is covering both the indictments and Biden’s case equally. Their narrative may be one sided, but the amount of coverage isn’t. Yet they are the bad guy. Wow.
 
Did I say crime? You love putting words in my mouth. In hunters own words he is peddling influence. Even if daddy by some sort of oj Simpson miracle isn’t involved. They have already tracked the money. I think that part is done.

If Eric trump was on tape saying don’t let me get big don involved. You know he brings the hammer. You would be losing your ever loving mind. I think that narrative is over for you. Take the L. At the very least it is some form of extortion. Smfh.
The cognitive dissonance is staggering. (note: not a 'defense' of Trump) But, given the 4 years of almost-weekly spin-up of "the walls are closing!", followed by flame-outs or exaggeration of inaccurate reporting should have set a new standard on how to react to this type of news.

But, the almost Baghdad Bob-like denial of what is either proven or uncontested facts is really frustrating. We should all want our politicians to be free of corruption. Best case: This just looks really, really bad for Biden & he's so unconnected from the reality of what his son is doing that he legitimately was ignorant.

The problem is that if he's POTUS...how is that ok?

...and if this many government agencies had this much information...what does that mean? No good answers.
 
The cognitive dissonance is staggering. (note: not a 'defense' of Trump) But, given the 4 years of almost-weekly spin-up of "the walls are closing!", followed by flame-outs or exaggeration of inaccurate reporting should have set a new standard on how to react to this type of news.

But, the almost Baghdad Bob-like denial of what is either proven or uncontested facts is really frustrating. We should all want our politicians to be free of corruption. Best case: This just looks really, really bad for Biden & he's so unconnected from the reality of what his son is doing that he legitimately was ignorant.

The problem is that if he's POTUS...how is that ok?

...and if this many government agencies had this much information...what does that mean? No good answers.
What is the crime?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: cherrydawg
The cognitive dissonance is staggering. (note: not a 'defense' of Trump) But, given the 4 years of almost-weekly spin-up of "the walls are closing!", followed by flame-outs or exaggeration of inaccurate reporting should have set a new standard on how to react to this type of news.

But, the almost Baghdad Bob-like denial of what is either proven or uncontested facts is really frustrating. We should all want our politicians to be free of corruption. Best case: This just looks really, really bad for Biden & he's so unconnected from the reality of what his son is doing that he legitimately was ignorant.

The problem is that if he's POTUS...how is that ok?

...and if this many government agencies had this much information...what does that mean? No good answers.
It is breathtaking to watch. I have made several oj references. If trump goes down. So be it. I think most pubs on this board agree with this. Not one Democrat or fake independent is ok with this on the board when it comes to Biden. They are so afraid of any trump vindication or any possible crack in the frame. It is what they are best at. They control their own narrative and the others get in line. The microcosm is right here. They talk about the trump cultists. Pubs on this board have disagreements with each other all the time. Usually worked out one way or another, but that group never cracks. Ever. Never meet in the middle. It is their narrative or no narrative. Incredibly frustrating.



Some one sent this to me. At the end, these voters admit nothing changes. Even admit that Obama turned their back on them. They even say, maybe voting differently is the only way to see if anything changes. Will any of these people in this video vote differently in 2024. Not a freakin chance.
 
What is the crime?
Extortion for starters. I dare you to read this. Then defend them again. Hunter withheld payments from female employees for sexual favors. Whoever was brave enough to write this article should receive a Pulitzer. I think I will post this article everytime you say differently in response.


If you haven’t been paying attention, president numnuts has been claiming he has a wall between hunters dealings and his political ones. He says he had no idea hunter was in the board at burisma. He has had to admit this was wrong because they found out he met with an advisor of burisma.
 
Last edited:
Extortion for starters.

Who was extortated, when, what was given what was recieved, what was the threat that influenced the benefit, where is the verifiable proof?
 
Who was extortated, when, what was given what was recieved, what was the threat that influenced the benefit, where is the verifiable proof?
You may never see it. He was being recorded committing extortion. Plain as day. I don’t even need to know if one permit was granted because of his 50000 a month salary. While he was a crackhead providing no service at all to them other then being the vp’s son. His only job. You don’t want to believe it. That is on you. People have been convicted with way less evidence. Like what Savannah posted. This isn’t a conspiracy. These are actually facts.

You want to ask an appropriate question of hunter. Ask him what his job entailed at burisma? I can’t believe you are in the military and think like this. Maybe our military is going to hell in a hand basket.
 
No idea what's ultimately true. But, the FD-1023 recently released by Grassley quotes a "highly credible" source that reported a criminal scheme involving then-VP Joe Biden and Burisma. According to the FD-1023 summary, Burisma’s owner specifically referenced the firing of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

Among the sources's conversations with Burisma’s owner, shortly after Biden made his first public statement about Shokin “being corrupt”, Shokin was investigating Burisma, and Zlochevsky told the source that “Hunter will take care of all of those issues through his dad.”

But after the 2016 election, the source talked again with Zlochevsky, who noted that “Shokin had already been fired, and no investigation was currently going on…” That's apparently significant because Biden has claimed he pushed for Shokin’s firing because Shokin was not investigating Burisma, which is the opposite of what's detailed in the FD-1023.

LINK

I guess it's a question of who's telling the truth.
Again Sorkins own deputy says there was no investigation.
 
Again Sorkins own deputy says there was no investigation.
 
Extortion for starters. I dare you to read this. Then defend them again. Hunter withheld payments from female employees for sexual favors. Whoever was brave enough to write this article should receive a Pulitzer. I think I will post this article everytime you say differently in response.


If you haven’t been paying attention, president numnuts has been claiming he has a wall between hunters dealings and his political ones. He says he had no idea hunter was in the board at burisma. He has had to admit this was wrong because they found out he met with an advisor of burisma.
Against Hunter is a POS and don't care about him. What is the crime of bribery and extoration that's supposed to committee by Joe?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: cherrydawg
What is the crime?

Bribery? What else would millions of dollars to a politician's family be for? I don't think we have all the data, yet. But, the law is pretty clear & broad on this point. Pick your poison:

(b)Whoever—
(1)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A)
to influence any official act; or
(B)
to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)
to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A)
being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)
being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)
being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3)
directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4)
directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c)Whoever—
(1)otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A)
directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B)
being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2)
directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3)
directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT