Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Smoking gun testimony


Bobby Brown
 Share

Recommended Posts

[Quote]Archer testified that over the span of their decade-long business relationship, Hunter Biden put his father on the phone around 20 times while in the company of associates but "never once spoke about any business dealings."

At one point, Archer was asked point blank: "Are you aware of any wrongdoing by Vice President Biden?"

He responded, "No, I'm not aware of any."[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a quote earlier, but I'm not going to get into this game again. I'll just say that,  regardless of your political affiliations or beliefs, if you're truly interested in doing what's right for this country, you should really read the transcript from the House Oversight Committee hearing. Which I will provide a link to below. Use that to make up your mind, not a very small excerpt that anyone posts on a message board or what you hear on Tucker Carlson or Fox or MSNBC or Occupy Democrats. Hopefully,  we all can make the right decision come election time and hopefully there will be a right decision to make.

 

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-devon-archers-transcribed-interview-transcript/

Edited by rajncajn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby Brown said:

Lol...I've read the transcript more than once.  Nothing in there supports the claim of a smoking gun of corruption to Joe Biden.  

I mean...unless the bombshell was that sometimes Joe Biden eats dinner at places with people.  

I guess that depends on how you would define improper relationships, gifts, favors etc. Having worked with/for the government for over 30 years, I probably have a different perspective than you.

 

But like I said, people shouldn't take my word for it. They should read it for themselves and get their own take. Obviously everyone is going to see it differently. 

Edited by rajncajn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

So where in the transcript is the smoking gun bombshell in your opinion?

I never said there was one. I said people should not listen to what you or I think and go read it for themselves. I don't know if there really is one just in his testimony alone. That doesn't mean it should just be dismissed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

I never said there was one. 

When I said there wasn't a smoking gun...you replied that it depends on how you define things. 

So, I'll ask it another way.  

In what part(s) of the transcript would a logical person read something and see defined inarguable proof of illegal corruption tied to Joe Biden? 

Edited by Bobby Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

When I said there wasn't a smoking gun...you replied that it depends on how you define things. 

So, I'll ask it another way.  

In what part(s) of the transcript would a logical person read something and see definitive proof of illegal corruption tied to Joe Biden? 

I told you. I'm not playing this game with you. You don't care what my opinion is because you don't value it. All you want me to do is give you a target to shoot holes in. I'm not your whipping boy. People should make their own, informed,  decisions. Not listen to people/media/politicians who want to tell everyone what they should think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

I told you. I'm not playing this game with you. You don't care what my opinion is because you don't value it. All you want me to do is give you a target to shoot holes in. I'm not your whipping boy. People should make their own, informed,  decisions. Not listen to people/media/politicians who want to tell everyone what they should think.

OK so from your perspective as somebody who works for/with government, what things in the transcript stand out as even potential corruption? Is it simply talking to somebody that his son is having dinner with? Is that something you would avoid because it is not allowed. Is that something you believe other presidents and high level politicians never did? 

Maybe I'll find time to read the transcript, but not sure I can get thru the valley girl style of speaking with a YOU KNOW every other sentence. Sounds like a person grasping to find words to say something without committing perjury. I've skimmed a bit and some of what Archer is testifying to is just his opinion, as he states himself. (e.g. that Burisma would have gone under if not for the Biden brand, he admits that just his opinion, based on his views).

By the way, the link you provided is to "key exchanges" not the complete transcript, which is also linked there. All those "****" are breaks in the testimony and the next key point that whoever prepared this material wanted to focus on (believe that would be James Comer R-KY and any staff he used.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby Brown said:

:lol:

So the smoking gun is in the transcript dependent on how you define things.  But nothing specifically in the transcript can be referenced to be defined that way.  

Sweet.  :lol:

Again,  I never said there was one. 

 

41 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

OK so from your perspective as somebody who works for/with government, what things in the transcript stand out as even potential corruption? Is it simply talking to somebody that his son is having dinner with? Is that something you would avoid because it is not allowed. Is that something you believe other presidents and high level politicians never did? 

Maybe I'll find time to read the transcript, but not sure I can get thru the valley girl style of speaking with a YOU KNOW every other sentence. Sounds like a person grasping to find words to say something without committing perjury. I've skimmed a bit and some of what Archer is testifying to is just his opinion, as he states himself. (e.g. that Burisma would have gone under if not for the Biden brand, he admits that just his opinion, based on his views).

By the way, the link you provided is to "key exchanges" not the complete transcript, which is also linked there. All those "****" are breaks in the testimony and the next key point that whoever prepared this material wanted to focus on (believe that would be James Comer R-KY and any staff he used.)

It's a hard read for sure. I'm sure he neither wants to perjure himself or open himself up to prosecution.

Yes,  what I posted are key exchanges that they (the oversight committee) believe support their case. That's what Bobby was referring to as a "smoking gun," though I'm not sure anyone is actuality calling it that. I linked to it so that you could read it and decide if you thought you agreed. If you want the entire transcript, it and the interview can be found here.

https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-devon-archers-transcribed-interview-transcript/

 

Edited by rajncajn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rep. Biggs: So why do you think they were asking Hunter Biden for D.C. help? 

Mr. Archer: I mean, why? 

Rep. Biggs: I mean, what did you take away from that? 

Mr. Archer:  Well, I mean, he was a lobbyist and an expert and obviously he carried, you know, a very powerful name. So I think it was ‑‑ that’s what they were asking for. 
 

Ukraine was/is a POS country. Use the Biden brand. Help=Influence 

What happens after that phone call?

”Well Son of Bitch”

“The prosecutor got fired”

Quid pro quo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good. Let's figure it out, because Comer has proven himself to be a partisan hack, like Jordan. 

Nothing he has brought to the table is tangible with evidence of 1:1 corruption...only crappy practices and judgement.

The Bengazi, emails, and Ukraine is so f'ing laughable at this point. It is so easy to see for any rational person...but not for simpletons or sheeple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

Special counsel into Hunter Biden now along with oversight committee.  If something is there, it will certainly shake out.

Now when they bring in Weiss or anyone in DOJ for testimony they can hide behind “I can’t comment on that because of the ongoing investigation “

Its all a bunch of bs

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, 6kings said:

Who is David Weiss?

An attorney nominated by Trump and confirmed by a Republican Senate.

And after a multi year investigation by the Republican lead special counsel has failed to make a link to Joe Biden; MAGA cries louder.

All victimhood all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

An attorney nominated by Trump and confirmed by a Republican Senate.

And after a multi year investigation by the Republican lead special counsel has failed to make a link to Joe Biden; MAGA cries louder.

All victimhood all the time.

 

IMG_1354.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

An attorney nominated by Trump and confirmed by a Republican Senate.

And after a multi year investigation by the Republican lead special counsel has failed to make a link to Joe Biden; MAGA cries louder.

All victimhood all the time.

“Weiss has already signed off on a sweetheart plea deal that was so awful and unfair that a federal judge rejected it,” Dye said in a statement to The Federalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information