News coverage on a Monday for Devon Archer

[poorpreacher]

https://www.justice.gov/jmd/misuse-position-and-government-resources

I'm assuming this applies to employees of the DOJ. Interesting that this would apply to them and not the POTUS, or all employees of the federal government.

If I'm misunderstanding something, I will accept the correction.

 

[shonuff253]

If you want me to engage with you, you'll need to be serious.

Well at this point that's all we have becaeue you haven't told me what crime was committed. What was the policy change driven by money that Biden executed?

 

[poorpreacher]

Well at this point that's all we have becaeue you haven't told me what crime was committed. What was the policy change driven by money that Biden executed?

Did I accuse Biden of changing policy for money?

 

[zingerdawg]

I don’t think that there is anyone out there suggesting Hunter was not at least in part selling access and the promise of influence. Of course he was. That’s exactly how thousands of people in DC make a very healthy living.

Did Joe contribute to that implied promise by joining calls? Absolutely he did.

But did Joe ever discuss business or policy on any of these calls? According to yesterday’s testimony, no he did not.

Did Joe attempt to change or influence any policy at the behest of Hunter or his clients? There remains no proof of that. The one theory about removing Shokin has been debunked over and over again.

Did Joe receive payments from Hunter’s clients? Yesterday was another frustrating day in Republican efforts to prove that as well and they seem to be conceding they aren’t likely to find it.

So where does that leave us based on what we know today?

DC is sleazy. Hunter is sleazy (though I do remind y’all he is a Georgetown/Yale Law graduate so likely not an idiot). Joe helped his son’s business, but not by doing anything illegal.

Until more damning proof surfaces, how can you draw any other conclusions?

It proved he lied to the American people 20 plus times. Including one of the debates he claimed, he never spoke to them. The fact that he was an active part in this pay for play is enough. Even if he did nothing, but meet these folks for hunter. Which is a huge stretch. His son was extorting companies and joe was a part Of that. If you want to play blind and say joe had no idea, what does that say about joe. It doesn’t matter if one thing was done to help them will. I am not being contrarian here. He sure is hell bent on supporting the ukraine. How does that look now? How would anything he does for the ukraine or China ever look like it is on the up and up. Now, he is not only compromised as a human. He is compromised as a president.

Any foreign policy change to benefit these countries will be attributed to this pay for play. The smoking gun will come later. After they break down the money pattern and shell companies. Common sense tells you, why make it so hard to track the money if everything was legit. Why lie about the contact? He is cooked. The minute he admitted to contact. Done. He knew he had to. He already knew what archer would say. Otherwise he would have just kept on lying.

 

[willdup]

Illegal or not, Joe Biden was part of Hunter's business,. Whether he discussed business, or not, Joe was part of the process. The administration said he was not, but he was.

Also I think it strains the bounds of common sense to believe he didn't receive payments, for being part of that process. But I agree that will be tough to prove. But there is certainly enough reason to keep looking.

How about this idea. We appoint a special counsel to investigate executive branch corruption, specifically involving a president and his immediate family, and that investigation includes the prior administration. Can we all sign up for that?

 

[poorpreacher]

How about this idea. We appoint a special counsel to investigate executive branch corruption, specifically involving a president and his immediate family, and that investigation includes the prior administration. Can we all sign up for that?

View embedded media

Absolutely. I'm all for looking at both.

 

[zingerdawg]

How about this idea. We appoint a special counsel to investigate executive branch corruption, specifically involving a president and his immediate family, and that investigation includes the prior administration. Can we all sign up for that?

View embedded media

Absolutely!! This corruption happened on Obama’s watch too. He would have to be included as well. Big mike is going to whoop your ass for suggesting this. Everyone already knew trump was a dirty democrat business man going in. He just decided to switch sides. Treasonous. Don’t think we are uncovering anything new there.

 

[poorpreacher]

This is interesting

Executive Order on Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[Moosefish]

 

[zingerdawg]

View embedded media

Kind of hard to argue that one. If they can’t charge him, it is impeachable for sure. Wow.

 

[willdup]

View embedded media

Kind of hard to argue that one. If they can’t charge him, it is impeachable for sure. Wow.

Can anyone share a reputable source documenting that Burisma was under investigation at the time? Every single source I’ve seen has stated that the entire international community wanted Shokin gone for not investigating corruption and that there was no investigation of Burisma happening at the time.

It’s impossible to reconcile these two facts, and there is a hell of a lot more evidence regarding when and why Shokin was removed than there is supporting the nefarious plot to use Joe to get the pressure from Shokin off of Burisma.

Edit:
Here are the highlights from his speech, where he emphasizes the importance of fighting corruption. We know on the same trip, he pushed for the removal of Shokin, who was replaced by someone much more aggressive in pursuing the Oligarchs.

 

[Moosefish]

Can anyone share a reputable source documenting that Burisma was under investigation at the time? Every single source I’ve seen has stated that the entire international community wanted Shokin gone for not investigating corruption and that there was no investigation of Burisma happening at the time.

It’s impossible to reconcile these two facts, and there is a hell of a lot more evidence regarding when and why Shokin was removed than there is supporting the nefarious plot to use Joe to get the pressure from Shokin off of Burisma.

Edit:
Here are the highlights from his speech, where he emphasizes the importance of fighting corruption. We know on the same trip, he pushed for the removal of Shokin, who was replaced by someone much more aggressive in pursuing the Oligarchs.

View embedded media

I posted this yesterday. The FBI considers this source "highly credible":

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.

 

[Moosefish]

Additionally, from Hunter's email above, it appears Burisma believed they were under investigation. Isn't that about as "reputable" as it gets, unless Shokin confirms or denys, otherwise?

 

[zingerdawg]

Additionally, from Hunter's email above, it appears Burisma believed they were under investigation. Isn't that about as "reputable" as it gets, unless Shokin confirms or denys, otherwise?

You have to be looking for spin to deny it from the email. Or just have an agenda. He will at least be impeached. I think joe caught a break. That the world wanted this guy gone as well. It made it easy for him. He looked like the hero. Then he went bragging about it.

 

[shonuff253]

https://www.justice.gov/jmd/misuse-position-and-government-resources

I'm assuming this applies to employees of the DOJ. Interesting that this would apply to them and not the POTUS

View embedded media

Ok that picture you posted isn't from Jim Jordans account but some fellas called Techno_Fog. Also the tweet or "X" I don't know what to call them now, doesn't mention Hunter or Joe.

 

[willdup]

I posted this yesterday. The FBI considers this source "highly credible":

The highly credible source is the person who was verbally told the information shared in the FD-1023. He was nothing more than a conduit and it’s reasonable to assume he is being honest when he shared what he was told.

There is no equal evaluation of the credibility of the direct source of the accusations, right? There are any number of reasons that someone from within Burisma would not be forthright about what did or did not happen regarding the Bidens, including various “incentives” of a Russian origin.

 

[shonuff253]

I posted this yesterday. The FBI considers this source "highly credible":

The "highly credible source" was relaying information he had been told not witnessed.

"In it, the source details an unverified tip received in 2020 about the business dealings of Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in Ukraine. Hunter Biden worked on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company."

 

[shonuff253]

You have to be looking for spin to deny it from the email. Or just have an agenda. He will at least be impeached. I think joe caught a break. That the world wanted this guy gone as well. It made it easy for him. He looked like the hero. Then he went bragging about it.

Connect that unverified text document as a warning to Hunter to get the case dismissed.

 

[DawgWCK]

You have to be looking for spin to deny it from the email. Or just have an agenda. He will at least be impeached. I think joe caught a break. That the world wanted this guy gone as well. It made it easy for him. He looked like the hero. Then he went bragging about it.

Not a Biden or Trump guy , overall like the current Speaker McCarty but he’ll have to impeach Biden to keep his job which will certainly be a democrat defense. I wish they would impeach Mayorkas first, several democrats might join far that vote.

 

[zingerdawg]

Connect that unverified text document as a warning to Hunter to get the case dismissed.

 

[deadduckdawg]

It was obviously a simple business decision. The Shokin Shakedown exceeded the cost of the Biden Bilk so Zlochevsky got a deal at ten million after Joe gave him the friendship discount.

 

[shonuff253]

So you can.

 

[Moosefish]

The highly credible source is the person who was verbally told the information shared in the FD-1023. He was nothing more than a conduit and it’s reasonable to assume he is being honest when he shared what he was told.

There is no equal evaluation of the credibility of the direct source of the accusations, right? There are any number of reasons that someone from within Burisma would not be forthright about what did or did not happen regarding the Bidens, including various “incentives” of a Russian origin.

Ok, so what about Burisma believing they were under investigation and asking Hunter for help from gov't officials? Were they lying, paying him, and asking for help they didn't need?

That would be weird.

Even of this is all a Russian plot...it doesn't matter if money changed hands and actions were taken. It would be the intent of those bribed.

 

[Moosefish]

Ok that picture you posted isn't from Jim Jordans account but some fellas called Techno_Fog. Also the tweet or "X" I don't know what to call them now, doesn't mention Hunter or Joe.

Right, that guy is a lawyer & journalist. He was quoting Jordan & providing the email from Hunter's laptop that referenced what Jordan was talking about. So, it was sent to Hunter, asking him for help from US policy makers. The intent is laid out...there aren't many ways to interpret that.

 

[deadduckdawg]

The highly credible source is the person who was verbally told the information shared in the FD-1023. He was nothing more than a conduit and it’s reasonable to assume he is being honest when he shared what he was told.

There is no equal evaluation of the credibility of the direct source of the accusations, right? There are any number of reasons that someone from within Burisma would not be forthright about what did or did not happen regarding the Bidens, including various “incentives” of a Russian origin.

I think you have it wrong. The 1023 was authored by an FBI agent who interviewed the highly-credible and long-term source. That they described the source as long-term leads me to believe he is not a Burisma employee.

 

[shonuff253]

Right, that guy is a lawyer & journalist. He was quoting Jordan & providing the email from Hunter's laptop that referenced what Jordan was talking about. So, it was sent to Hunter, asking him for help from US policy makers. The intent is laid out...there aren't many ways to interpret that.

How can you say this was sent to Hunter when it doesn't mention Hunter, Joe or a Biden and the letter is addressed to "Dear Colleagus".

 

[Moosefish]

How can you say this was sent to Hunter when it doesn't mention Hunter, Joe or a Biden and the letter is addressed to "Dear Colleagus".

Because it came from his laptop & he was a recipient of the email. My guess is that it had more than one recipient, but it doesn't change the implications. It could be fabricated, I guess. But, I'm not sure how likely that is.

So, if this email is legitimate, what's your opinion?

 

[Moosefish]

Some of you might not like Mollie Hemmingway, but THIS is a pretty good wrap up of what the arguments against Biden are right now. Maybe there are explanations. We'll see.

 

[shonuff253]

Because it came from his laptop & he was a recipient of the email. My guess is that it had more than one recipient, but it doesn't change the implications. It could be fabricated, I guess. But, I'm not sure how likely that is.

So, if this email is legitimate, what's your opinion?

I can't even tell what the email is about, what's the subject, who's it to? Again connect that "email" to Hunter and illegality.

 

[Moosefish]

I can't even tell what the email is about, what's the subject, who's it to? Again connect that "email" to Hunter and illegality.

Ok. The context has been provided.

 

[shonuff253]

Ok. The context has been provided.

Where?

 

[Moosefish]

Where?

You may not agree with tweet author, and he could have completely fabricated the email....but, he has tweeted this type of content (Hunter's emails and similar documentation for a range of subjects) in the past, has been around for almost a decade, and has never been accused of fabricating anything. He's known for backing up his reporting with documentation...I guess it's the lawyer in him.

He's providing the context from the emails, to show what Jordan is referring to. I'll re-ask my question another way: assuming this is not fabricated and the provided context is accurate, what is your opinion?

 

[stray]

Well when your side wants to change history to make it sound as though slavery benefited AA and was some sort of jobs program, I'll pick Joe over your side any day.

 

[Moosefish]

You believe the actual evidence on Trump has been underwhelming? You are definitely one of the more reasonable and consistent people on here but that assertion blows my mind to such a degree I think i am misunderstanding what you are saying.

He publicaly asked Russia to hack Dem emails, which they did. His campaign asked that those emails be released within hours of the p**sygrab tape going public, and they were. He told the world he believed Putin and not our own intelligence services on the matter, which was both a lie and a national humiliation.

In the first Impeachment, the primary evidence were his own words asking for dirt for aid.

J6, you don’t feel there is good evidence? The fact that he knowingly lied about election fraud? The fake electors? The pressure on Barr to go along and confirm fraud? The very public pressure on Pence? The fact that he failed to tell his followers to stand down and disperse for nearly three hours?

And the evidence in the Documents case, which is overwhelming, prominently features yet again Trump’s own public statements.

Regarding the actual evidence against Biden, this clip from last night is likely indicative of how the republicans are feeling about their prospects.

View embedded media

Sorry, missed this earlier. As I said in my post you quoted, I believe the evidence of Trump engaging in something "big" like treason or similar is underwhelming. Especially after years of promised "smoking guns".

I think we differ on our interpretation of some of what you referenced. It certainly doesn't live up to what people like Schiff claimed they had "seen".

 

[deadduckdawg]

Some of you might not like Mollie Hemmingway, but THIS is a pretty good wrap up of what the arguments against Biden are right now. Maybe there are explanations. We'll see.

Yes, a nice, clear telling of where the investigation stands. The libs are in the denial/negation stage and are showing Hunter an enormous amount of love.

 

[shonuff253]

You may not agree with tweet author, and he could have completely fabricated the email....but, he has tweeted this type of content (Hunter's emails and similar documentation for a range of subjects) in the past, has been around for almost a decade, and has never been accused of fabricating anything. He's known for backing up his reporting with documentation...I guess it's the lawyer in him.

He's providing the context from the emails, to show what Jordan is referring to. I'll re-ask my question another way: assuming this is not fabricated and the provided context is accurate, what is your opinion?

So he's providing the context without any evidence? What is he basing this context on?

 

[Moosefish]

So he's providing the context without any evidence? What is he basing this context on?

It's literally all in the email. Hunter was emailed from Burisma, outlining what they wanted. Is your issue seriously because the screenshot doesn't say "Hunter Biden"? This was emailed to him. Or "Joe Biden"? What other US official did he have access to that could affect US policy? I'm not following you at all, here.

You still didn't answer my question.

 

[zingerdawg]

Sorry, missed this earlier. As I said in my post you quoted, I believe the evidence of Trump engaging in something "big" like treason or similar is underwhelming. Especially after years of promised "smoking guns".

I think we differ on our interpretation of some of what you referenced. It certainly doesn't live up to what people like Schiff claimed they had "seen".

It is funny how the Dems on the board have just glossed over schiff claiming he saw clear evidence. Obviously, a straight up lie. As much as I want a reset, I think the entertainment value of smith and Bragg falling on their butts would be must see reaction tv.

 

[blackpug6]

Do you know it wasn’t the truth. Were you there you don’t know what happened back then. All you do is accuse whites today of what happened over 100 years ago. You need to quit living in the past and start supporting our country.

sigh,
some people...

 

[shonuff253]

Yes or no on the facts laid out in this article by the WP on the case?

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

It's literally all in the email. Hunter was emailed from Burisma, outlining what they wanted. Is your issue seriously because the screenshot doesn't say "Hunter Biden"? This was emailed to him. Or "Joe Biden"? What other US official did he have access to that could affect US policy? I'm not following you at all, here.

You still didn't answer my question.

I'm asking what is the meaning of the email. What is it's in ten, for the company to ask for one of its contractors (BS) to do something? Again is that a crime?