Hunter Biden's former business partner tells Congress about Joe Biden calls

[candide]

20 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Not really. Biden was involved in the business. Someone must have been getting paid. It's fairly clear.

Posting the same unproven claims over and over will not make it true. You continuously evoked the article to justify your claims, but you are unable to quote the allegedly relevant part of the article.

Could it be that you are trolling?

[GroveHillWanderer]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

There is absolutely nothing in that article that provides, "the word of Hunter Biden's business associate." His words are not quoted.

 

All it contains are interpretations by other people of what Archer said, such as by James Comer and Dan Goldman.

 

And whereas Comer gives his interpretation (said interpretation not being evidence, please note) that Archer's remarks showed the value of the Biden "brand," Dan Goldman characterised them completely differently.

 

According to Goldman, Archer's testimony showed that, "... approximately 20 times over the course of a 10-year relationship. Hunter may have put his father on the phone with any number of different people, and they never once spoke about any business dealings."

 

So in the end, both Republicans and Democrats seem to be claiming that the same witness testimony supports their own views on Joe Biden's putative involvement in Hunter's business dealings, even though their views are diametrically opposed.

[Bkk Brian]

39 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Suuure... only that he has spoken in business meetings on numerous occasions and was part of the company's brand. Apart from that, no involvement at all. ????

What in the article was he speaking about on the numerous occasions of 20 times over 10 years?

[BangkokReady]

7 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

There is absolutely nothing in that article that provides, "the word of Hunter Biden's business associate." His words are not quoted.

 

All it contains are interpretations by other people of what Archer said, such as by James Comer and Dan Goldman.

 

And whereas Comer gives his interpretation (said interpretation not being evidence, please note) that Archer's remarks showed the value of the Biden "brand," Dan Goldman characterised them completely differently.

 

According to Goldman, Archer's testimony showed that, "... approximately 20 times over the course of a 10-year relationship. Hunter may have put his father on the phone with any number of different people, and they never once spoke about any business dealings."

 

So in the end, both Republicans and Democrats seem to be claiming that the same witness testimony supports their own views on Joe Biden's putative involvement in Hunter's business dealings, even though their views are diametrically opposed.

Both of them appear to suggest Biden's involvement in his son's business.

 

If you don't believe it, then that's up to you, but it seems kind of pointless where I'm discussing the contents of the article and you're saying you don't believe them.

 

What's the point of your commenting? You could have just said you don't believe the article and moved on.

 

Obviously if the article is false, then it's flase, but I'm commenting on what the article says (in the comments on the article of all places).

 

Why assume that the chap didn't say what has been reported? Neither side appears to be contradicting the other.

[rudi49jr]

On 8/1/2023 at 8:29 AM, BenStark said:

Were it his haters that didn't pay his taxes, sniffed coke, hired hookers and engaged his dement dad to get some suspicious business deals?

You talking about Don jr? 

[ICU Kid]

Last time they covered up with the Chinese balloon psyOp T this time they're

discussing aliens in congress.

 

Anything to keep these grifters off of the front pages

 

Politifact rate this story as half true - draw your own (red or blue echo chamber) conclusions though https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/

 

 

[ozimoron]

11 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Why choose such a bizarre standard? Are you a court of law?

Because my opinion doesn't matter. You are accusing Biden of committing crimes and yet claim that admissible in a court is a bizarre standard, it boggles the mind.

[BangkokReady]

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

What in the article was he speaking about on the numerous occasions of 20 times over 10 years?

It's in the article if you click the link:

 

"Archer also testified that Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone during business meetings more than 20 times, according to Comer."

 

It doesn't say over 10 years though.

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

It's in the article if you click the link:

 

"Archer also testified that Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone during business meetings more than 20 times, according to Comer."

 

It doesn't say over 10 years though.

Nice deflection I asked what they were talking about, you did not answer that despite it being in the article and again you refuse to achknowledge the contents of the article by saying it was not over 10 years:

 

"The witness indicated that Hunter spoke to his father every day," Goldman said. "And approximately 20 times over the course of [a] 10-year relationship, Hunter may have put his father on the phone with any number of different people, and they never once spoke about any business dealings. As he described it, it was all casual conversation, niceties, the weather, 'what's going on?' There wasn't a single conversation about any of the business dealings that Hunter had." 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

7 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Both of them appear to suggest Biden's involvement in his son's business.

 

If you don't believe it, then that's up to you, but it seems kind of pointless where I'm discussing the contents of the article and you're saying you don't believe them.

No, they don't. Goldman's remarks go to the point that Biden had no involvement in his son's business dealings. That's what, "they never once spoke about any business dealings," means.

 

And I never once said anything about not believing the contents of the article. I'm pointing out (as several others have done) that the article does not provide any actual evidence of what Archer said or about whether Biden was involved in his son's business dealings.

 

For instance, I am fully prepared to believe that the people mentioned, like Comer and Goldman, said what they are quoted as saying. However what they are saying is a) totally different and b) not probative of anything.

[metisdead]

An inflammatory post discussing another member has been removed:

 

31. You will not publicly discuss other members or post any member's personal information including but not limited to emails, social media messages, private messages, photos or website details. 

 

A post commenting on moderation has been removed.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

Suspicions and allegations are NOT conclusive proof of anything.

 

If they are, why has Comer not released the transcripts as proof?

I know. That's why this is called a hearing.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I think the Hunter Biden deflection strategy has run its course.

So why not give up?

[Isaan sailor]

 

"I entered as one of the poorest men in Congress, left one of the poorest men in government — in Congress and as vice president," Biden said

. 
Funny, I don’t believe him.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, ICU Kid said:

Last time they covered up with the Chinese balloon psyOp T this time they're

discussing aliens in congress.

 

Anything to keep these grifters off of the front pages

 

Politifact rate this story as half true - draw your own (red or blue echo chamber) conclusions though https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/

 

 

Thanks. This is important. At best (for the Bidens), given Joe's role with Ukraine at the time, Hunter being on the board of Burisma risked a conflict of interest. At worst, the relationship enabled abuse of influence and corruption. Even in the best case, how could Joe have had no knowledge of his sons business?? 

[Irish star]

On 8/1/2023 at 8:42 AM, EVENKEEL said:

Will certainly put doubts in voters minds come election day. Now fix joe a nice  cuppa hot cocoa and let him rest.

Biden. Gives Putin Nightmare's 

[candide]

2 hours ago, ICU Kid said:

Last time they covered up with the Chinese balloon psyOp T this time they're

discussing aliens in congress.

 

Anything to keep these grifters off of the front pages

 

Politifact rate this story as half true - draw your own (red or blue echo chamber) conclusions though https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/may/07/viral-image/fact-checking-joe-biden-hunter-biden-and-ukraine/

 

 

The article was examining claims from an image diffused in social media. One half was true and one half false.

 

To start with, you forgot to mention what was the question in the title of the article. It was:

"When Joe Biden’s son Hunter was serving as "a director to Ukraine’s largest private gas producer," the elder Biden "threatened to withhold $1 BILLION in U.S. aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire a prosecutor looking into" the gas company."

 

No one denies that Hunter was working for Burisma when Joe threatened to fire Shokin. That was the half of the social media post examined which was true.

 

There is also something else written in the article (quote below):

"We found no evidence to support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son's interests in mind, as the message suggests. It's not even clear that the company was actively under investigation or that a change in prosecutors benefited it."

That was the other half of the social media post examined which was false.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Isaan sailor said:

 

"I entered as one of the poorest men in Congress, left one of the poorest men in government — in Congress and as vice president," Biden said

. 
Funny, I don’t believe him.

Who cares if you believe him or not?

[Isaan sailor]

Breaking news:  Biden administration delays refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  Prices too high.  That’s rich.  Maybe Hunter can chip in some. 

[ICU Kid]

I'm British so don't have as much skin in the game and haven't been brainwashed in the same way as many of you have.  I realise that politicians are ALL corrupt AND compromised so I don't buy into either gang (red or blue).

 

All us outsiders want to see is the best entertainment show possible n and let's ALL be honest,  Biden is low wattage as an entertainer.  He just fumbles his words and falls over.  He used to have some good lines (e.g. "dog faced pony soldier") but that was a long time ago.  His confused old man act has grown stale and seems to have run its course.

 

For entertainment value, I think you guys should bring Trump back. 

He's just more fun & better to watch.

 

Maybe Gavin Newsome? - gives off America psycho vibes and has made SanFran & California into a high tax <deleted> hole in just a few short years.  That might work as a plot line: homelessness, shoplifting and human <deleted> everywhere in every neighbourhood in the US.

 

Let's face it, the US is going down the s<deleted>r so we may as well all have a laugh as we watch it happen in real time.

 

 

[BangkokReady]

3 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

No, they don't. Goldman's remarks go to the point that Biden had no involvement in his son's business dealings. That's what, "they never once spoke about any business dealings," means.

 

And I never once said anything about not believing the contents of the article. I'm pointing out (as several others have done) that the article does not provide any actual evidence of what Archer said or about whether Biden was involved in his son's business dealings.

 

For instance, I am fully prepared to believe that the people mentioned, like Comer and Goldman, said what they are quoted as saying. However what they are saying is a) totally different and b) not probative of anything.

If you're now changing your point to being that you don't believe what the article says is true, what's the point of coming here to discuss it?

 

You don't believe the article. Great. Congratulations.

 

It's still very damming if it's true.

[ICU Kid]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

If you're now changing your point to being that you don't believe what the article says is true, what's the point of coming here to discuss it?

 

You don't believe the article. Great. Congratulations.

 

It's still very damming if it's true.

These guys seem terrified of El Trumpo (the most fun president ever for outside observers)

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Apologies. I misread your comment.

 

What we're they talking about? I'm not sure. When did the calls take place? In business meetings. Why in business meetings? Because both Bidens are so busy that was the only time they could chat?

 

Couple that with Biden Sr being part of the company brand, and you've got some pretty damming evidence.

You keep stating that people should believe the article. I do, it seems you do not. They were not talking about business as has been clearly laid out in the article that you say should be believed.

 

A quote from you above:

Why did you come here if you don't believe what is in the article? What are you even doing?

 

 

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

Breaking news:  Biden administration delays refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  Prices too high.  That’s rich.  Maybe Hunter can chip in some. 

Too expensive! Impossible with Bidenomics! Who'd have thought it?

 

 

[candide]

7 minutes ago, ICU Kid said:

I'm British so don't have as much skin in the game and haven't been brainwashed in the same way as many of you have.  I realise that politicians are ALL corrupt AND compromised so I don't buy into either gang (red or blue).

 

All us outsiders want to see is the best entertainment show possible n and let's ALL be honest,  Biden is low wattage as an entertainer.  He just fumbles his words and falls over.  He used to have some good lines (e.g. "dog faced pony soldier") but that was a long time ago.  His confused old man has grown stale and seems to have run its course.

 

For entertainment value, I think you guys should bring Trump back. 

He's just more fun & better to watch.

 

Maybe Gavin Newsome - he's made SanFran & California into a high tax <deleted> hole.  That might work as a plot line: homelessness, shoplifting and human <deleted> in every neighbourhood in the US.

 

Let's face it, the US is going down the s<deleted>r so we may as well all have a laugh as we watch it happen in real time.

 

 

How does it compare with U.K? ????

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/

[BangkokReady]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I have to believe the article or not comment now? My mind is boggled all the more.

I just don't really understand what point you are making. You come to the comments section, see people discussing what is in the article, then start demanding court admissible proof like you're somehting special.

 

What's the point? Who cares if you don't believe the article?

 

Why waste everyone's time asking for external proof of something in an article when you know that is what people are referring to? It's completely pointless.

 

You've shared your opinion, but it doesn't change anything. You don't get to choose other people's opinions, as much as you would like to.

[ICU Kid]

Just now, candide said:

How does it compare with U.K?

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02784/

Idc about the UK either BUT we look to America for entertainment so Biden needs to go.  The confused grandad act has become really boring.

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, ICU Kid said:

These guys seem terrified of El Trumpo (the most fun president ever for outside observers)

They're clearly terrified of anything negative coming out about Biden, and desperately want to close down any discussion of this article.

 

It must be somehting big.

[ICU Kid]

25 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

They're clearly terrified of anything negative coming out about Biden, and desperately want to close down any discussion of this article.

 

It must be somehting big.

Tom Luongo writes well on this subject.

 

Biden & Yellen are FOR the WEF/Davos (Great Reset) crowd and are therefore vandalising the US for globalist reasons.

Biden is a WEF/globalist stooge.

 

Whereas Trump *appears to be* 'America First' and happy to let the EuroTrash commies at the WEF/EU rot.  Also seems Fed chirman powell is trying to defend the dollar (stopped money printing & upping interest rates) to make things tough for WEF/EU etc. (whilst Yellen & Biden are cranking up the spending (via the ludricrously named 'Inflation Reduction Act', 'Chips Act' and so on...) which will screw the US long term as foreigners baulk at taking on US debt).

 

I predict this post will vanish in 3, 2, 1....

 

 

[BangkokReady]

4 minutes ago, ICU Kid said:

Tom Luongo writes well on this subject.

 

Biden & Yellen seem to be FOR the WEF/Davos crowd and are therefore vandalising the US for globalist reasons.

 

Whereas Trump is 'America First' and happy to let the EuroTrash commies at the WEF/EU rot.  Also seems Fed chirman powell is trying to defend the dollar and make things tough for WEF/EU etc. (whilst Yellen & Biden are cranking up the spending which qill screw the US long term as foreigners baulk at taking on US debt).

 

I predict this post will vanish in 3, 2, 1....

 

 

It's very strange. They've made Biden into this mythical "Great Gray Hope" character. The only person who can possibly beat Trump, so no matter what he does/has done, no matter how old or decrpid he gets, they can't let any of it out, their anti-Trump feelings are that strong.

 

Why not just find a different candidate? One without the sleeze and the questions around his mental faculties?