News coverage on a Monday for Devon Archer

[Athens is Heaven]

I just went to NBCnews.com and the story was on page one:

Biden spoke with son's business associates numerous times, former partner tells lawmakers

Rep. Daniel Goldman said Devon Archer told lawmakers that Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone with business partners and others about 20 times over 10 years, but they didn't talk business.

www.nbcnews.com

Enough said went to NBC news. Comical!

 

[PotimusWillie]

Moose again what was the crime? Who was bribed and for what?

I was going to stay out of this because I truly have no idea. I have ignored it all. I tire of the media orgasming over themselves. But I peaked at this spirited volley of ideological shots.

How many votes did Trump have changed to attempt to steal the election? Who changed the votes?

 

[Moosefish]

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/17/here-we-go-again-an-explosive-hunter-biden-laptop-email-needs-context/

What "facts"? It's a two week old opinion piece that ignores evidence/context known at the time & doesn't take into account congressional testimony & further evidence discovered since.

It also doesn't "disprove" or explain anything from the opinion piece I linked above, including:

"Burisma was paying Archer and Hunter Biden as much as $83,000 a month to serve on the Ukrainian energy concern’s board, despite the fact that neither man had relevant experience or expertise for the job outside of their frequent meetings and contact with the then-vice president. The two were hired the same month that the U.K. had opened an investigation into company officials. The money was well spent.

A mere five days after the Dubai meeting and phone call, Vice President Joe Biden gave a speech to the Ukrainian Rada, its parliament in Kyiv, attempting to lay the groundwork for firing Shokin.

It took just a few short months before Shokin was fired. Joe Biden bragged in a public speech in January 2018 that he was personally responsible for getting that firing accomplished so quickly. In fact, he claimed he had bullied the Ukrainian government into firing the investigator by threatening to withhold a billion-dollar loan guarantee unless he got what he wanted.

....

What an amazing series of events that led to Joe Biden personally fulfilling what Burisma was paying Hunter Biden to accomplish. What are the odds?

---
...why would Joe Biden get on the phone with his business associates at all? Why would Barack Obama’s point man in Ukraine be talking to Ukrainian officials under suspicion of massive corruption who were paying large sums of money to his son? What was the point, exactly, if not as chairman of the family business?

We know Burisma was paying Biden family members for help getting powerful people in D.C. to get investigators off its back. We know Biden was the top official in D.C. related to Ukraine. Five days after Burisma made the request, Biden was laying the groundwork for the firing. And he has publicly bragged about getting the prosecutor fired."

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?

BS i.e. "Blue Star Strategies" that worked closely w/ Hunter, should have registered under FARA, which was required disclosure when Biden was VP? Hunter had connected Burisma BS and was tasked with heading off any federal probes into Zlochevsky, who was under investigation for corruption at the time.

The "meaning" of the email is that in conjunction with other evidence/testimony revealed recent show that Biden was aware of Hunter's foreign business and that he allegedly facilitated them.

It supports a June 2020 FBI 1023 report that said Joe Biden and Hunter Biden were paid $5 million each by Zlochevsky to alter U.S. policy. And it provides further clarification of what appears to be an effort to trade political influence from/for foreign governments for money.

The "meaning" of this email is further context for more of what is known. As I've said numerous times...maybe there's an explanation. But, it seems that the more we know, the worse it gets.

(and again...I've answered questions you've asked, yet you've ignored mine again)

 

[shonuff253]

What "facts"? It's a two week old opinion piece that ignores evidence/context known at the time & doesn't take into account congressional testimony & further evidence discovered since.

It also doesn't "disprove" or explain anything from the opinion piece I linked above, including:

"Burisma was paying Archer and Hunter Biden as much as $83,000 a month to serve on the Ukrainian energy concern’s board, despite the fact that neither man had relevant experience or expertise for the job outside of their frequent meetings and contact with the then-vice president. The two were hired the same month that the U.K. had opened an investigation into company officials. The money was well spent.

A mere five days after the Dubai meeting and phone call, Vice President Joe Biden gave a speech to the Ukrainian Rada, its parliament in Kyiv, attempting to lay the groundwork for firing Shokin.

It took just a few short months before Shokin was fired. Joe Biden bragged in a public speech in January 2018 that he was personally responsible for getting that firing accomplished so quickly. In fact, he claimed he had bullied the Ukrainian government into firing the investigator by threatening to withhold a billion-dollar loan guarantee unless he got what he wanted.

....

What an amazing series of events that led to Joe Biden personally fulfilling what Burisma was paying Hunter Biden to accomplish. What are the odds?

---
...why would Joe Biden get on the phone with his business associates at all? Why would Barack Obama’s point man in Ukraine be talking to Ukrainian officials under suspicion of massive corruption who were paying large sums of money to his son? What was the point, exactly, if not as chairman of the family business?

We know Burisma was paying Biden family members for help getting powerful people in D.C. to get investigators off its back. We know Biden was the top official in D.C. related to Ukraine. Five days after Burisma made the request, Biden was laying the groundwork for the firing. And he has publicly bragged about getting the prosecutor fired."



BS i.e. "Blue Star Strategies" that worked closely w/ Hunter, should have registered under FARA, which was required disclosure when Biden was VP? Hunter had connected Burisma BS and was tasked with heading off any federal probes into Zlochevsky, who was under investigation for corruption at the time.

The "meaning" of the email is that in conjunction with other evidence/testimony revealed recent show that Biden was aware of Hunter's foreign business and that he allegedly facilitated them.

It supports a June 2020 FBI 1023 report that said Joe Biden and Hunter Biden were paid $5 million each by Zlochevsky to alter U.S. policy. And it provides further clarification of what appears to be an effort to trade political influence from/for foreign governments for money.

The "meaning" of this email is further context for more of what is known. As I've said numerous times...maybe there's an explanation. But, it seems that the more we know, the worse it gets.

(and again...I've answered questions you've asked, yet you've ignored mine again)

Your entire claim that this is proof of Biden crime family is based on two falsehoods: 1) that Sorkin had an active investigation or planning an investigation into Burisama and 2) Joe Biden was acting in his own family self-interest. The email trail you post is not proof of an active or planned investigation by Sorkin but a company telling BS to do the job they were hired for was to lobby for Burisma and it's CEO. Where do you see evidence of an active investigation? And again we know for a fact that the Obama administration, EU and IMF wanted Sorkin gone for guess what...not investigating corruption.

So you asked me what if the email is proof of Biden corruption...its not. Again you can't even show a crime was committed.

 

[poorpreacher]

Your entire claim that this is proof of Biden crime family is based on two falsehoods: 1) that Sorkin had an active investigation or planning an investigation into Burisama and 2) Joe Biden was acting in his own family self-interest. The email trail you post is not proof of an active or planned investigation by Sorkin but a company telling BS to do the job they were hired for was to lobby for Burisma and it's CEO. Where do you see evidence of an active investigation? And again we know for a fact that the Obama administration, EU and IMF wanted Sorkin gone for guess what...not investigating corruption.

So you asked me what if the email is proof of Biden corruption...its not. Again you can't even show a crime was committed.

You do understand that you don't have to commit a crime to be corrupt?

 

[poorpreacher]

@shonuff253

According to Devin Archer's testimony, Joe Biden participated in the process of selling the "Biden brand". How do you think that squares with this executive order on ethics?

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

 

[stray]

Your entire claim that this is proof of Biden crime family is based on two falsehoods: 1) that Sorkin had an active investigation or planning an investigation into Burisama and 2) Joe Biden was acting in his own family self-interest. The email trail you post is not proof of an active or planned investigation by Sorkin but a company telling BS to do the job they were hired for was to lobby for Burisma and it's CEO. Where do you see evidence of an active investigation? And again we know for a fact that the Obama administration, EU and IMF wanted Sorkin gone for guess what...not investigating corruption.

So you asked me what if the email is proof of Biden corruption...its not. Again you can't even show a crime was committed.

 

[Moosefish]

: 1) that Sorkin had an active investigation or planning an investigation into Burisama and
.....
Where do you see evidence of an active investigation?

1. Burisma itself believed it was under investigation.

2. FBI "highly credible sources"

3. Sorkin himself said he was fired for it

What evidence do you have they weren't, outside of evidence-free claims from Democratic politicians & articles echoing those claims?

Again you can't even show a crime was committed.

Outside of a signed confession, I'm not sure how much more smoke you need to see to continue to claim that all of this was fine. Even the clear FARA violations.

 

[Moosefish]

The VP is on video claiming credit for doing the very thing his son's foreign corrupt employers were paying him, his family, and the VP himself to get done.

No crime there, I guess.

 

[zingerdawg]

Your entire claim that this is proof of Biden crime family is based on two falsehoods: 1) that Sorkin had an active investigation or planning an investigation into Burisama and 2) Joe Biden was acting in his own family self-interest. The email trail you post is not proof of an active or planned investigation by Sorkin but a company telling BS to do the job they were hired for was to lobby for Burisma and it's CEO. Where do you see evidence of an active investigation? And again we know for a fact that the Obama administration, EU and IMF wanted Sorkin gone for guess what...not investigating corruption.

So you asked me what if the email is proof of Biden corruption...its not. Again you can't even show a crime was committed.

I know you find it funny, because this is the cnbc talking point on this. It is corruption at the highest level. Selling influence. With burisma, it may have lined up with American interests. That is why he was so bold in admitting what he did. Like he was a junkyard dog. Who is to say they always lined up. There is no turning back here. He was selling his influence to the highest bidder. Likely treason. His son committed extortion on his behalf by the recording. He could at least be indicted for being part of that.

This is your spin defense. In all honesty, what you are saying doenst mean Jack squat. Any blind man can see what happened here. It is dishonesty at the highest level. It is like being an athlete and gambling on your sport. It just proves what we already knew. He is as sleezy as they come. You don’t lie about contact for years on camera, then create a maze of shell company payments if what you and your son are doing are on the up and up.

You will never answer this question. Don’t know why I even ask. If this was completely legit, why hide his multiple contacts with burisma? Why lie about it?

 

[poorpreacher]

1. Burisma itself believed it was under investigation.

2. FBI "highly credible sources"

3. Sorkin himself said he was fired for it

What evidence do you have they weren't, outside of evidence-free claims from Democratic politicians & articles echoing those claims?


Outside of a signed confession, I'm not sure how much more smoke you need to see to continue to claim that all of this was fine. Even the clear FARA violations.

If there was a recording of Joe Biden, with Hunter's business partners, with Joe saying, "Give me 10 million dollars and I will use my position for your benefit, even it it risks our security", he would say, "There is no proof that's actually Joe Biden".

It would take Joe Biden confessing every detail, under oath, on national television, to convince sho.

 

[shonuff253]

@shonuff253

According to Devin Archer's testimony, Joe Biden participated in the process of selling the "Biden brand". How do you think that squares with this executive order on ethics?

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

Is

2. FBI "highly credible sources"

That "highly credible sources" was a single source relaying third hand information that he himself couldn't corroborate.

3. Sorkin himself said he was fired for it

Sorkin the corrupt prosecutor whom the entire EU, IMF and Obama administration who official policy was for his removal because he was corrupt. Of course he's going to say otherwise because he was corrupt.

 

[shonuff253]

The VP is on video claiming credit for doing the very thing his son's foreign corrupt employers were paying him, his family, and the VP himself to get done.

No crime there, I guess.

Yes or no it was official Obama administration policy, EU and IMF for Sorkin to be removed due to him not working to stamp out corruption?

 

[Moosefish]

Yes or no it was official Obama administration policy, EU and IMF for Sorkin to be removed due to him not working to stamp out corruption?

It is irrelevant. Burisma wanted him gone. Burisma paid the Bidens to influence foreign policy to help Burisma & the VP says he did exactly whay they wanted.

 

[shonuff253]

It is irrelevant. Burisma wanted him gone. Burisma paid the Bidens to influence foreign policy to help Burisma & the VP says he did exactly whay they wanted.

How is that irrelevant? It shows Biden was acting in the official duties and capacity as Vp pushing official US policy. Your entire case for corruption hinges on him doing the opposite of that but for personal greed. What am I missing here because your rational for corruption is falling apart without that foundational information.

 

[shonuff253]

It is irrelevant. Burisma wanted him gone. Burisma paid the Bidens to influence foreign policy to help Burisma & the VP says he did exactly whay they wanted.

And again I ask you, show me a case where the Bidens influenced foreign policy to help Burisma for monetary gain.

 

[Moosefish]

How is that irrelevant? It shows Biden was acting in the official duties and capacity as Vp pushing official US policy. Your entire case for corruption hinges on him doing the opposite of that but for personal greed. What am I missing here because your rational for corruption is falling apart without that foundational information.

That's assuming that Biden had no influence on that policy. He's being paid millions. It defies the logic of human nature to claim that would not influence how he influences policy....that's why it's illegal.

 

[Moosefish]

And again I ask you, show me a case where the Bidens influenced foreign policy to help Burisma for monetary gain.

One more time: Burisma wants Shokin fired. Burisma paid millions. Biden then himself claims HE got Shokin fired.

 

[zingerdawg]

And again I ask you, show me a case where the Bidens influenced foreign policy to help Burisma for monetary gain.

Why lie about it? If this was squeaky clean. Why the years of lies. Why lie about it during the debates. Why go on tv numerous times and say I put a wall up between what he does and what I do. Only to have plenty of contact. Trump asked him directly during the debates. Why not say what you did? You like to say what crime. I am going to follow you around and say why the lies joe? Why hide the payments?

 

[Moosefish]

Amongst the very lengthy definition of bribery I provided earlier in this thread:

(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;

...there is certainly enough here to credibly assert now that the above happened, even if it never goes anywhere or more is revealed that makes this "ok", later. But, the repetitive "show me the crime!" denial right now is mind-boggling.

 

[Moosefish]

Why lie about it? If this was squeaky clean. Why the years of lies. Why lie about it during the debates. Why go on tv numerous times and say I put a wall up between what he does and what I do. Only to have plenty of contact. Trump asked him directly during the debates. Why not say what you did? You like to say what crime. I am going to follow you around and say why the lies joe? Why hide the payments?

Exactly. Here is a much longer, but thorough summary of everything on this subject.

 

[Moosefish]

Exactly. Here is a much longer, but thorough summary of everything on this subject.

And Here is one more, with quotes discussing bribery like:

...to reiterate what seems to be an essential point in this unfolding saga: Devon Archer's recollection of the fateful "call to DC" placed by Hunter Biden and Burisma executives -- allegedly getting the ball rolling to the ousting of that Ukrainian prosecutor -- appears to confirm a big piece of the explosive bribery allegation leveled at Joe and Hunter Biden by a confidential FBI informant, as memorialized in the much-discussed FD-1023 memo. According to reports and sources, some FBI investigators had already corroborated some details from this informant's accusation. Devon Archer confirming the occurrence and context of that same phone call would absolutely bolster the credibility of the informant, and makes additional questions about the bribery claim even more serious.

 

[shonuff253]

That's assuming that Biden had no influence on that policy.

Then you need to show that Biden influenced the policy from an original version to the public one so it would benefit him and his family.

 

[stray]

Then you need to show that Biden influenced the policy from an original version to the public one so it would benefit him and his family.

So, his defense in court would be that "I took the money to do something for them but it was going to happen anyway so it wasn't really a bribe".
Good luck with that Joey Baby.

 

[Moosefish]

Then you need to show that Biden influenced the policy from an original version to the public one so it would benefit him and his family.

That's incorrect. This was covered above:

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

But, it also takes about 12 seconds to google this topic. The mere acceptance of a bribe is a crime, there are countless public officials caught accepting a bribe & charged before they can do what they were bribed for.

If the intent was $ for action: Hunter accepted it & the VP was both privy to it & accepted the $, as well. The benefit is obvious...millions of dollars.

HERE for basic principles, in plain English:

For the prosecution to prove the charges in the courtroom, the necessary element is that an agreement occurred. This may require a taped conversation, emails or other surveillance files. A video of one person given the other money or a briefcase is often sufficient. Then, it is a matter of the judge or jury determining guilt and penalties.

If the public official has sufficient influence to change pending legislation, provide favor with an audience or community or have the power to commit an official act, the bribed party may face more aggressive penalties. The intent of the bribed person and the effect he or she has on the favor or influence is important in seeking a conviction. Without intent to participate or change the matter in favor of another person, the conviction may lack the necessary strength. However, the prosecution may still have enough evidence to establish a causal connection between the parties through payment and the act of the favor.

Criminal Defense
It is important to demonstrate to the courtroom that there was a lack of intent to participate.

 

[shonuff253]

That's incorrect. This was covered above:



But, it also takes about 12 seconds to google this topic. The mere acceptance of a bribe is a crime, there are countless public officials caught accepting a bribe & charged before they can do what they were bribed for.

If the intent was $ for action: Hunter accepted it & the VP was both privy to it & accepted the $, as well. The benefit is obvious...millions of dollars.

HERE for basic principles, in plain English:

Show where Biden took money in exchange for influencing public policy. You have BS (Hunter) being LEGALLY paid by Burisma to help with their public image and help keep their CEO out of jail. What did Hunter do to earn that money? Nothing it appears as he had no power and it was official US and EU policy for Sorkin to be fired.

 

[shonuff253]

Amongst the very lengthy definition of bribery I provided earlier in this thread:



...there is certainly enough here to credibly assert now that the above happened, even if it never goes anywhere or more is revealed that makes this "ok", later. But, the repetitive "show me the crime!" denial right now is mind-boggling.

Again show the crime, what did Biden give in return? If he were said millions what was the service Biden provided?

 

[Moosefish]

Show where Biden took money in exchange for influencing public policy. You have BS (Hunter) being LEGALLY paid by Burisma to help with their public image and help keep their CEO out of jail. What did Hunter do to earn that money? Nothing it appears as he had no power and it was official US and EU policy for Sorkin to be fired.

Again show the crime, what did Biden give in return? If he were said millions what was the service Biden provided?

I'm going to stop repeating myself with answers to the same questions you ask in a slightly differently manner. Either go back and read my responses to things you've already asked or just read two long opinion pieces HERE and HERE that do a good job of summarizing everything.

 

[shonuff253]

I'm going to stop repeating myself with answers to the same questions you ask in a slightly differently manner. Either go back and read my responses to things you've already asked or just read two long opinion pieces HERE and HERE that do a good job of summarizing everything.

And that's why this story is going nowhere even amongst the right because there is no crime you can't even show that there's a crime. This was a hey good discussion but until you guys actually show that Biden actually did something for money there's no lawbroken

 

[Moosefish]

...until you guys actually show that Biden actually did something for money there's no lawbroken

Again, that's literally not what the law says.

/out

 

[shonuff253]

Again, that's literally not what the law says.

/out

 

[willdup]

I'm going to stop repeating myself with answers to the same questions you ask in a slightly differently manner. Either go back and read my responses to things you've already asked or just read two long opinion pieces HERE and HERE that do a good job of summarizing everything.

Well, now we know why republicans didn’t want the testimony to be public.

“According to Archer’s testimony, Burisma officials did not want to see then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was allegedly investigating Burisma, removed from office because they had him “under control.”

“Whoever the next person that was brought in was — you know, the fact that he was — this is the total, this is the narrative spun to me, that Shokin being fired was a — was not good, because he was like under control as relates to Mykola [Zlochevsky],” Archer testified.

Biden investigation: Full Devon Archer testimony released - Washington Examiner

The House Oversight and Reform Committee released the full transcript from Monday's Devon Archer interview, in which he testified Hunter Biden had President Joe Biden on speakerphone 20 times around business associates and that Burisma officials did not want a Ukrainian prosecutor fired because...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Moosefish]

Well, now we know why republicans didn’t want the testimony to be public.

“According to Archer’s testimony, Burisma officials did not want to see then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was allegedly investigating Burisma, removed from office because they had him “under control.”

“Whoever the next person that was brought in was — you know, the fact that he was — this is the total, this is the narrative spun to me, that Shokin being fired was a — was not good, because he was like under control as relates to Mykola [Zlochevsky],” Archer testified.

Biden investigation: Full Devon Archer testimony released - Washington Examiner

The House Oversight and Reform Committee released the full transcript from Monday's Devon Archer interview, in which he testified Hunter Biden had President Joe Biden on speakerphone 20 times around business associates and that Burisma officials did not want a Ukrainian prosecutor fired because...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

That's where it gets messy, because the article continues:

This is contrary to allegations made in an FBI-generated FD-1023 tip sheet where a paid FBI informant alleged Mykola Zlochevsky, the head of Burisma, told him he paid both Hunter Biden and his father $5 million to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin

I guess that's where the money trail becomes important.

 

[zingerdawg]

Well, now we know why republicans didn’t want the testimony to be public.

“According to Archer’s testimony, Burisma officials did not want to see then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was allegedly investigating Burisma, removed from office because they had him “under control.”

“Whoever the next person that was brought in was — you know, the fact that he was — this is the total, this is the narrative spun to me, that Shokin being fired was a — was not good, because he was like under control as relates to Mykola [Zlochevsky],” Archer testified.

Biden investigation: Full Devon Archer testimony released - Washington Examiner

The House Oversight and Reform Committee released the full transcript from Monday's Devon Archer interview, in which he testified Hunter Biden had President Joe Biden on speakerphone 20 times around business associates and that Burisma officials did not want a Ukrainian prosecutor fired because...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

You did read the entire article. Right? All the testimony. It contradicts itself. For one. Then it full on admits that joe lied to the amercian people. He was in constant contact with them. According to that article, the Biden brand was the only thing keeping them in business. He testified that they didn’t want Shokin fired. Then he also said, they later told hunter after a board meeting to help them out due to pressure from
Shokin. Sounds like he contradicted himself in the testimony. Weird. Proves to me he lied. And he was likely doing this with several other companies with hunter. Unbelievably damning unless you have an agenda.

 

[zingerdawg]

That's where it gets messy, because the article continues:



I guess that's where the money trail becomes important.

Am I reading that right. But didn’t the article completely contradict itself at the very end.

Biden: I never talked to son Hunter about overseas business dealings

Joe Biden has been in a back and forth with President Trump over a reported whistleblower complaint as well as his son's business dealings in Ukraine.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Moosefish]

Am I reading that right. But didn’t the article completely contradict itself at the very end.

I took it that way, but am at a Doc appointment & focused on the next paragraph when I replied

 

[Moosefish]

Am I reading that right. But didn’t the article completely contradict itself at the very end.

Biden: I never talked to son Hunter about overseas business dealings

Joe Biden has been in a back and forth with President Trump over a reported whistleblower complaint as well as his son's business dealings in Ukraine.

www.usatoday.com

I'll also add that the FBI source has reportedly had much of his/her info corroborated by other sources. Would seem strange to get something that big 180° off

 

[poorpreacher]

If nothing else, this testimony demonstrates TO ME that Joe Biden is a lying hypocrite. He violated his own executive order, on ethics in government.

A 4 second google search shows that other federal agencies have specific policy, against using position for benefit of family, friends, etc.

https://www.energy.gov/hc/ethics-misuse-position#:~:text=You cannot use your position,affiliated with outside the Government.

Misuse of Position and Government Resources

www.justice.gov

Use of Your Public Office | U.S. Department of the Interior

DOI_Use of Public Office

www.doi.gov

Department of Defense Standards of Conduct Office > DoD Personnel > Ethics Topics for DoD Personnel > Misuse of Government Resources or Position

dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil

https://ethics.od.nih.gov/misuse-position

I guess the rules apply to everybody else, but not Joe.

 

[willdup]

I'll also add that the FBI source has reportedly had much of his/her info corroborated by other sources. Would seem strange to get something that big 180° off

What was corroborated was the fact that the paid informant likely did meet with the Burisma executive and likely was told what he said he was told. The underlying facts of what he was told were not corroborated and are in conflict with everything else we know about Shokin and his lack of action investigating corruption.

Am I reading that right. But didn’t the article completely contradict itself at the very end.

Biden: I never talked to son Hunter about overseas business dealings

Joe Biden has been in a back and forth with President Trump over a reported whistleblower complaint as well as his son's business dealings in Ukraine.

www.usatoday.com

Ok, this is important. Archer testified that he never once heard Joe discussing business on these many calls, right? This is Hunter’s primary business partner testifying under oath. Is that accurate or not?

 

[poorpreacher]

Here is another one

https://www.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/0/86D5B4F72AF0FBCB852585B6005A1A22/$FILE/Standards%20of%20Ethical%20Conduct%20508.pdf