I do discount it because it was not a factual story. I’ve proven that to you but you don’t care.
It was a made up political story embellishing the facts just like the dozens of other stories that Joe made up.
Bidunce Crime Family Thread
- Thread starter Proud NJ Sports Fan
- Start date
I do discount it because it was not a factual story. I’ve proven that to you but you don’t care.
It was a made up political story embellishing the facts just like the dozens of other stories that Joe made up.
Well, that's what Joe says happened and Shokin in fact was fired, but I'm sure you know better.
(And you get that "but, but, but they were protesting in the street" isn't proof of anything, right? )
Yes, I do know better because Joe said Shokin was fired hours later while in reality it was months. I’ve already explained that to you… you’ll just ignore that fact though along with all of the other facts that you’ll keep ignoring because you want this to be true.
You’re just making no effort to understand what was happening in Ukraine in 2015, and that Shokin was being alleged with corruption from people with no connection whatsoever to the Biden’s.
No, I understand you, but, as I've said repeatedly, and as you choose to avoid each and every time, it does not matter if someone else somewhere didn't like Shokin. It does not matter if, I don't know some baker from Kyiv thought he was crooked. It is completely irrelevant.
So to say that Joe Biden as the vice president of the United States threatened a foreign government with the withholding of loan guarantees, some thing he wasn't empowered to do, unless they fired a prosecutor that was investing a company that paid millions upon millions to his family in what can only be described as protection money, is somehow fine, because there was a protest in the Ukraine, is simply wrong. And your saying it over and over again doesn't change that. I won't be so condescending as to suggest that you continue to repeat it because you "don't understand". Instead, I think you're being delivered late disingenuous.
Of course it does.
Why did the EU want him out? Why did the IMF want him out? Why did the people of Ukraine want him out?
You just can't consider the fact that he may have actually been corrupt and that the position of the united states to not consider another billion dollars to Ukraine because their prosecutor was not going after corruption, was the correct position.
That was the position of the Obama administration. Who they choose to communicate that position does not make it a crime if it was the ambassador to Ukraine or the Vice President communicating it. It's the same policy decision.
Again ignoring that Archer testified that the Burisma board believed Shokin was under control and a new prosecutor would be bad for Burisma...
LOL, so Joe Biden making a comment, not under the threat of prosecution can be disregarded, but Archer's comedies taken his gospel? Lol, that's certainly not selective perception, is it?
By the way how the heck dud Archer get a face to face meeting with then secretary of state John Kerry. Friends of Hunter certainly seemed to have extraordinary access.
and you still believe Joe Biden's embellished story which I have proven to you to be wrong as more credible than a guy under oath who was a witness for the republicans...
Selective indeed..
Devin Archer, Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz founded Rosemont Seneca Partners together.
Heinz being Kerry's step son. Not really that much of a leap to get there is it? They knew each other. At some point, you'd think you would look into some of this.
I see, and was this a social gathering at Secretary Kerry's home or a meeting in his office?
At some point you really should have some personal integrity and stop caring the water for what is aor an meeting in his office. At some point you really should have some personal integrity and stop caring the water for what, increasingly apparently, is a corrupt influence enterprise being operated by the then vice president of the United States.
Who cares. Point being that suggesting that it would be crazy for these two to have a meeting is silly.
Hunter's plan was to make money off the name, and there is plenty of evidence he did... but that is not illegal for Hunter and certainly not for Joe. Archer testified that was Hunter's goal, but Archer also testified that Hunter was aware of the laws and did not want to break them. That Burisma wanted more from Hunter but he had to balance that line of was was allowable and what was not.
When you can point to an action by Joe that would actually be illegal and not your ridiculous theory where you support Shokin over the entire international community working to oust him in 2015... but an actual allegation of wrong doing against Joe then my view on Joe would change.
I don't care to carry water. I just have an objective view of the facts here, many of which you got wrong.
Lol, seriously? Do you feel like the secretary of state regularly takes appointments during the business day with their children's business partners? Does that seem normal to you.
Whatever happened to Kerry's son in this business anyway? Oh, that's right he thought it was so sketchy that he gave up his interest in. Hunter Biden stayed in though, didn't he?
Archer testified that Joe Biden was "the product" and that the business with selling access to the vice president. Are you suggesting that selling access to the vice president United States is legal?
Lol, the ridiculous theory is yours in that you suggest that it's OK for the vice president United States to deny loan guarantees, over which he technically did not have authority, to a foreign government if they did not agree to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company that funnels millions to his family. Somehow you have developed a unique theory that if at least one other person in the world thought the prosecutor was somehow unworthy then Joe can shake down a foreign government as much as he likes. That is a torturous interpretation. I have to believe if you had something better you would actually go to it. So since that continues to be a refrain, it feels a bit disingenuous.
He's not just some random guy though. He's someone doing business in the hundreds of millions.
Yes, that guy who happens to be a business partner of his son's is getting a meeting.
I'm suggesting that what Archer alleged in his testimony is not illegal.
You are allowed to sell a brand. Archer believes that the Biden name gained Burisma legitimacy by keeping them in the news just by having Biden's name. That was valuable to them. Nothing Archer alleged is illegal.
So close, yet so far...
The theory is that Vice President Joe Smith would have delivered the same message as Joe Biden did.
It doesn't become illegal JUST because Joe Biden delivered it.
I even thought his son hit the ejection button? I don't know how many Cabinet level officials you know, but they tend to be booked pretty solid, particularly the key ones like State. This meeting is unusual and noteworthy. That's why it's getting a lot of focus. Come on, you can acknowledge that. You don't have to try to obfuscate on every single point.
Lol, again you're moving the goalposts a little bit right? Protesters in the Ukraine don't decide US policy. You get that right?
Played poorly on the first nine and then recovered on the back but still didn't win any side. However, I had a four for three on number 11 which was good for $24 skin which made the day worthwhile.
Played Huntsville for the first time yesterday….tough course but really loved it.
Huge report from Greg Kelly last night. Huge if true. Biden could be out of the presidential race by Halloween
Adam Schiff is the poster child for that. But you are right.... not holding my breathe at this point. With all of the evidence pointing to the good possibility that Joe is involved, I would welcome SOME from of hard evidence that Joe is indeed crooked.
That video of Glenn Beck interviewing Michael Franzese, reformed mafia capo, is worth a look. He explains how all that money laundering works and how the Dons and capos kept their names out of any transactions that could be traced. I posted the link in post above somewhere. A simple google search will get it for you.
It's interesting that Georgia really stretched the imagination in charging Trump, et al. under RICO statutes and the Biden family money grab seems to be the case that actually could fit under RICO statutes.
Last edited:
What Kelly said didn't even rise to that level. What he said was "I've heard that there is evidence." That's not much of a statement.
A couple of items I was thinking of when reading the CL82 & Merge exchanges:
1. Was Devon Archer even under oath when he spoke before Congress? It was billed as an "interview" and I saw conflicting reports about whether it was sworn testimony or not.
2. Goldman asked Archer if Biden was "involved" with Burisma. An open ended question that you can read and answer it in any way you choose. Archer's answer doesn't prove or disprove anything.
3.Archer said things to Tucker about Joe and Burisma that he didn't tell Congress. Things that implicated Joe. I have to re-listen to the interview for specifics.
1. Was Devon Archer even under oath when he spoke before Congress? It was billed as an "interview" and I saw conflicting reports about whether it was sworn testimony or not.
2. Goldman asked Archer if Biden was "involved" with Burisma. An open ended question that you can read and answer it in any way you choose. Archer's answer doesn't prove or disprove anything.
3.Archer said things to Tucker about Joe and Burisma that he didn't tell Congress. Things that implicated Joe. I have to re-listen to the interview for specifics.
I watched.
My issue with his framing is that there is no possibility that Joe could not be guilty.
Implying that a foreign company could not hire someone like Hunter without it being a crime for Joe.
While I would have no problem at all if we created better laws to prevent that kind of relationship and the related potential issues, but it is currently not against the law.
From the transcript:
Mr. Mandolfo.
You should also understand that, although this interview is not under oath, that by law you are required to answer questions from Congress truthfully. Do you understand that?
Mr. Archer: I do
Witnesses who knowingly provide false testimony could be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or making false statements. Do you understand?
Mr. Archer. I do.
Mr. Mandolfo. Furthermore, you cannot tell half-truths or exclude information that would be necessary to make the statements accurate. You are required to provide all information that would make your response truthful. A deliberate failure to disclose information can constitute a false statement.
Do you understand?
Mr. Schwartz. It is still true that you are not aware that Hunter Biden ever discussed policy with his father, discussed business with his father, influenced American policy for purposes of his business or otherwise caused the Vice President or asked the Vice President to do anything improper, right?
Mr. Archer. That's my understanding
In all seriousness though, you were worried about how truthful he would be to Congress but not Tucker?
I watched some of the Tucker interview and it didn't seem to be that bad for Joe, but if you have a specific feel free to point it out as I did not watch the whole thing.
Well that's his opinion, from one who was in Joe's shoes, as he sees it. And if you follow his logic, from his experience with wielding power and fraud and bribery and knowledge of the shell accounts and how they are used and what they are used for he can draw no other conclusion. Franzese the Capo didn't deal in illusions.
Well there is nothing on the books that says its a crime to hire a drug addled philanderer for $1 million salary who was administratively discharged from the service of his country for drug use and is reportedly looked at as dumber than a dog who has no other skill than to offer access to the second most powerful politician in the United States. Hunter's hiring itself is not the crime, but it is the first step in the process that leads to well, ..... the big guy.
I really haven’t dug deep into this whole mess and at the end of the day I need to find evidence directly linking the President which has not happened yet.
- For a Board to pay a drug addict that has zero experience or knowledge of the energy sector millions just doesn’t happen. You are paying him for something.
- Why do you need shell companies to process the $20 million they have found so far?
- Biden as VP made more trips to Ukraine than every country combined.
Short of having firm evidence, this just fails the smell test period and not defensible in my view.
- For a Board to pay a drug addict that has zero experience or knowledge of the energy sector millions just doesn’t happen. You are paying him for something.
- Why do you need shell companies to process the $20 million they have found so far?
- Biden as VP made more trips to Ukraine than every country combined.
Short of having firm evidence, this just fails the smell test period and not defensible in my view.
He was never in Joe's shoes though, where you're talking about selling out US Policy for a foreign interest.
That's another level of potential corruption.
So many companies use shell corporations for legitimate reasons though. The use of a shell corporation is not indicative of corruption in itself. Several of my clients have ownership structures with "shell corporations”. Just because he has experience using shell corporations to try and hide funds doesn't necessarily mean that companies who choose to segregate the structure and payments for whatever reason is nefarious.
That doesn't mean Hunter is clean here either, but to say no other conclusion can be drawn is a little over the top.
FWIW, the dumber than a dog stuff is the memo cooked up by Guiliani. Hunter worked for the department of commerce, became a lobbyist, and Bush appointed him to the board of Amtrak. It’s not like he was a nobody. I’d agree though that the only reason a company like Burisma would put him on their board was his last name. He should not have taken that job for that reason… but Hunter taking advantage of his last name doesn’t indicate anything nefarious from Joe on its own.
Joe still need to do something on his end to make this a problem.
100%. Was it valuable enough to have the name on the board though? Does it require that Joe did something illegal on his end?
Not going to guess, but there would be legal reasons to set up shell companies and operate that way. Some of the companies served different purposes, had different ownership structures. Could have been illegal reasons as well though.
The US relationship with Ukraine shifted after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Biden’s 1st visit to Ukraine was in 2009. All of the rest were after Russia took Crimea. We were trying to build Ukraine as an ally to push back against Russian expansion. Need that context at least.
A
Once again, if there is evidence to convict, let it be. But from my view it stinks and it’s pretty obvious
Merge, I do a lot of board work. Having a drug addict on your board with Hunter’s background adds no value, in fact more of a liability issue.
It’s not clear what purposes they serve. If this was about Processing, port fees and payments from other countries, it looks awfully suspicious.
This issue was raised by Jonathan Carl of ABC News. He wrote a book lambasting Trump, and has been very sympathetic to Biden. He expressed it as a significant concern of his.
Once again, if there is evidence to convict, let it be. But from my view it stinks and it’s pretty obvious
I can’t see the senile Walmart Greeter running again.
nypost.com
Americans are getting wise to Joe Biden’s corruption — despite his media gatekeepers
They have eyes, and common sense, and somehow the avalanche of incriminating evidence spewing forth from the House Oversight Committee has managed to bypass the gatekeepers of the media and slowly …
nypost.com
If his name were not Biden, I’d agree.
You seriously don’t think having the VPs son on your board adds to your reputation at a minimum? Let alone the fact that Hunter did work in DC under the Clinton administration, and as a lobbyist which means he has some level of relationship access on his own. Archer even said he believed Burisma would have folder if not for Hunter being on the board and did not believe Joe did anything on his end to help them. To say no value is crazy.
I'm not saying the payments shouldn't be looked into, but I think people are going with the incorrect assumption that these kinds of setups are uncommon or show nefarious intent on their own.
Haven't re-listened to all of both parts.... but he did say it is "categorically false" that Joe Biden had no role in Hunter's deals. Also talked about "soft" abuse of power. That categorically false claim is at odds with his Congressional interview. It wasn't clear what he meant by soft abuse. Hard to figure Archer out. Obviously he is facing jail time and I have no idea how what he said to Congress or Hunter helps or hurts him. But as I posted earlier his Hunter interview was more damning to Biden than his Congressional interview.
I don't know why he wasn't sworn in for his interview with Congress and I don't know the implications of lying under oath vs lying in an unsworn interview interview with Congress.
"Knowledge of" not "role in"
Big difference there.
Only difference is the law applied to your lying.
If you lie you would be charged with false statements.
If you lie under oath you would be charged with perjury.
My guess is that not swearing him in was likely an accommodation since he was coming in voluntarily and not the subject of the investigation as you could theoretically be charged with both if you're under oath.
he WAS in Joe's shoes from his perspective as an individual using the same modus operandi with respect to the shell accounts and money laundering. OF COURSE the underlying crimes would be different.
The Biden family shell corporations have no visible purpose unlike other shell companies that actually engage in some legal commerce. But you KNOW that. My comment about no other "conclusion can be drawn" were meant to be from Franzese's point of view.... ie from one who was familiar and had experience using the same tactics that it appears are used by the "Biden enterprise" regarding use of their shell companies......
SO..... just for the record....... do you accept that Joe has lied about his having no knowledge of Hunter's dealings?
That's a little ridiculous to be honest. There is no evidence at all that Joe was involved with or orchestrating any of that.
You're making that up. You have no idea what the purpose was of each entity. None of us here know... but the structures themselves are really not unusual. That's why congress didn't even ask Archer about the structure. That stuff is better suited to throw around in the media so people who don't deal see that type of activity think it must be corrupt.
100%. I have always said that was the case. Would be naïve to think it never came up.
It's ridiculous to say that Michael Franzese, looking at it from his perspective, would use that analogy?
I did not make up the more than 170 reports of suspicious banking transactions
very naive to assume that all of the Hunter trips on AF 2 and Joe's subsequent meetings and conversations with his business associates were perfectly legitimate and normal actions for a VP. not to mention Joe's newly discovered email accounts.
Yes, the suggestion that he and Joe Biden had the "same modus operandi with respect to the shell accounts and money laundering." is a ridiculous thing to suggest at this point.
If you're unfamiliar with SARs, they sound bad.
If you're familiar with them (I am in my line of work) they are routine especially when your looking at larger payments from foreign payers, and are not indicative of any wrong doing in the far majority of cases.
I'm not sure how to define "perfectly legitimate" so I'll clarify my stance here -
My suggestion is that Joe is and has been well aware of the laws and the restrictions of what he could do and what he could say. I'm not convinced he crossed that line or that he wouldn't have been careful not to.
If I see something more credible that innuendo, I'd change my view.
It doesn’t matter what his last name is. You do not put somebody with his problems on your board and pay him gobs of money. That’s not how boards work.
They are not common for these types of payments.
Of course it does. Board appointments are often strategic for specific goals.
Having the son of one of the most powerful politicians in the world? You don't think that offers them a competitive advantage on its own reputationally especially in the eyes of investors?
You're making that up. They are common for foreign business, and more so for real estate transactions like those that Archer was involved with. Not that dissimilar to the real estate shell companies under Trump's ownership.
Similar threads
