youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 9:03 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 8:50 am
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 8:39 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 8:21 am
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 8:14 am
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 8:02 am
tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 8:00 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 7:47 am
tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 6:44 am
I realize it's blasphemous to suggest to all the Tucker haters on here but everyone should watch his interview with Devon Archer.
Ha... Must be hard to laugh with your head buried in the sand.
When you were traveling abroad during that time with your family visiting friends, were you not using Viber, Whattsapp and other services? I still use whattsapp to talk and message friends abroad….don’t you?
Has nothing to do with communicating using WhattsApp or Viber. Likely referencing the letter Archer received from the "The Big Guy" in 2011 when he was VP. Clearly showing involvement, not a smoking gun. Just more shenanigans from a politician.
But this is nothing new. Archer testified under oath that Joe was never involved in the business dealings, never spoke about any business dealings.
So..."shenanigans"!
And yeah, I used WhatsApp with my wife a week ago when she was in Paris visiting family. Used it for 3 years when son was in New Zealand and China, and traveling elsewhere..of course...
No idea if the 2011 letter is new or not. did not see the meeting, and neither you or I were in the closed meetings.
The signed letter Joe sent Archer back in 2011 when Archer joined the Hunter Team, is directly to which I was referring WRT to the Tucker interview. Whatssapp has zero to do with the topic I mentioned.
Speaking of whattsapp.....I use regularly and while I was in Korea recently. Works great, but is still a Facebook/Meta product.
Did you read the letter?
Do you see anything in there about business???
Anything at all inappropriate?
Yes, I read it. and no, on the surface it is innocuous. Which is why I used pollical shenanigans. You can view it multiple ways MD. Sure, there is no there, there.
When we know pols benefit greatly financially, you can connect the dots. This simple letter essentially say...."I am here to support you and my son, and I would have preferred to speak to you personally, if I was not stuck talking with the leader of China. PS - I got your back".
BUT...there's NO evidence that Joe 'benefited greatly financially' from ANY of Hunter's activities.
Archer was both a friend and business partner of Hunter and Joe is a prolific note writer...so, the much more reasonable read is this was a par for the course note from Joe. For Archer, it may have felt like a big deal, but undoubtedly, many, many simple notes were written by Joe for many years to many people. It's a great practice for a politician, and for many people who just have it as part of their DNA to write notes for every little thing. My mother is such a person...I'm not.
I'm not saying that there's zero possibility of "shenanigans" but there's simply no evidence at all of there definitely having been anything corrupt. NO changes in US policy facilitated by Joe on behalf of a Hunter relationship in return for a pay off to Joe...or even a payoff to Hunter. None.
Of course, the lack of any such does not make all such by politicians' family or 'friends' or former government officials selling the perception of access to power feel quite unseemly, if not illegal. There's a massive business, as you know, in lobbying, which is predominantly about assistance in navigating and influencing government decisions on behalf of one's client, and the perception of "who you know" is a big piece. The other element, much more worthy, is good advice about what messages will best resonate, best gain favor...on the merits...with government policy makers. (Obviously there's this other IMO corrupting thing of financial donations to campaigns that lobbyists get involved with that, IMO, should be out of bounds as much as a direct bribe...but the current laws don't prevent such...but they should...no evidence of such in the Hunter situations).
As Archer indicates, Hunter was perceived as valuable not for his own expertise in regulatory matters, but rather to know the people, have access to the people, who could provide such expertise. That's not of zero value, and it's not corrupt or illegal, but we certainly can see that Hunter's sole value was his having met many people, many at his father's heels, over many years, and his ability, therefore to make a call and be recognized. And, as you know, many corporations put people who are famous, entertainers, ex-generals, ex cabinet officials, ex CEO's of other businesses, presumed to have access, on their boards, even if nothing is ever expected of them directly, except perhaps their counsel at a BD meeting. Simply adds to their branding.
And sure, Joe's ongoing presence through a speakerphone talking about simply family matters, or stopping by a table to greet his son and his table mates, added to such perception, burnished that perception. Nefarious? Nope. Unseemly? IMO, yes. But definitely not illegal or actually corrupt.
BUT if there actually was such evidence of quid pro quo policy change and payoff, then that would be corrupt as all get out. Prosecute.
But what we've learned from the GOP committee work and their MAGA blowhards is that they have zippo, nada confirmation of anything nefarious with Joe. And yet, that's the opposite of what they have claimed. Years and years and years of investigation. Got nuthin'.
So, to me, this is just another in a string of lies, all part and parcel of the MAGA ethic...the Big Lie being the worst.