Hunter Biden Tinfoil issues

[tech37]

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".

A pity (and also telling) that you do not apply this same logic to Orange Cheato who is a heck of a lot more obvious especially when it involves "shenanigans"

Geez kismet, anything related to Trump is as old as dirt at this point. He'll either die a death by a thousand cuts, or on appeal, be cleared eventually by SCOTUS. Most everyone on this board knows Trump is bad for the country, and as I've said in past, if reelected, we can't have half the country losing their minds again.

[tech37]

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.

Seems to me there's plenty of circumstantial evidence... enough to appoint a special counsel, if the Biden DOJ would allow it of course.

Follow the money mdlax... follow the money...

[NattyBohChamps04]

Geez kismet, anything related to Trump is as old as dirt at this point. He'll either die a death by a thousand cuts, or on appeal, be cleared eventually by SCOTUS. Most everyone on this board knows Trump is bad for the country, and as I've said in past, if reelected, we can't have half the country losing their minds again.

Are you gonna vote for Trump? I know I'm not voting for Hunter.

[tech37]

I realize it's blasphemous to suggest to all the Tucker haters on here but everyone should watch his interview with Devon Archer.

Watched it. Archer comes off as a nice guy. Don't know if he is or isn't, but he projects well. Tucker still has a creepy forced high school "wanna be with the cool kids" laugh. Now what?

Joe wrote a letter on VP stationary to a friend and business associate of his son. Nothing about any business Hunter and Devon are doing. No mention of facilitating access to foreign sovereigns or state actors. Should I be reading more into this totally innocuous, likely routine sort of correspondence from a political figure to a private citizen. Tawdry at best (and that's giving the benefit of the doubt to the President's critics). Nothing remotely illegal, right?

Missed this. Glad you watched. I haven't had the time to watch the entire interview (not sure it's posted) but plan to.

I thought their rapport was very interesting, both understanding how DC works without having to speak every syllable... a "wink and nod" interview.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

Seems to me there's plenty of circumstantial evidence... enough for a special counsel, if the Biden DOJ would allow it of course.

Follow the money mdlax... follow the money...

Show me the money.

Years and years and years of opportunity.

Why did the Trump Admin, under either of two AG's not appoint a special counsel?
Oh yeah, there really isn't anything there to justify it...but hey, trying to leverage defensive weapons in exchange for an announcement of an "investigation"...that WAS worth doing...note, just an announcement would suffice as they didn't expect any actual evidence...didn't need there to be a real investigation...

That's the MAGA blowhards, tech. That's all they actually want...

Don't fall for it.

[tech37]

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.

Seems to me there's plenty of circumstantial evidence... enough for a special counsel, if the Biden DOJ would allow it of course.

Follow the money mdlax... follow the money...

Show me the money.

Years and years and years of opportunity.

Why did the Trump Admin, under either of two AG's not appoint a special counsel?
Oh yeah, there really isn't anything there to justify it...but hey, trying to leverage defensive weapons in exchange for an announcement of an "investigation"...that WAS worth doing...note, just an announcement would suffice as they didn't expect any actual evidence...didn't need there to be a real investigation...

That's the MAGA blowhards, tech. That's all they actually want...

Don't fall for it.

So I'll raise your "don't for for it" with, you shouldn't have such a closed mind.

We'll see what happens...

[a fan]

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.

Seems to me there's plenty of circumstantial evidence... enough for a special counsel, if the Biden DOJ would allow it of course.

Follow the money mdlax... follow the money...

Show me the money.

Years and years and years of opportunity.

Why did the Trump Admin, under either of two AG's not appoint a special counsel?
Oh yeah, there really isn't anything there to justify it...but hey, trying to leverage defensive weapons in exchange for an announcement of an "investigation"...that WAS worth doing...note, just an announcement would suffice as they didn't expect any actual evidence...didn't need there to be a real investigation...

That's the MAGA blowhards, tech. That's all they actually want...

Don't fall for it.

So I'll raise your "don't for for it" with, you shouldn't have such a closed mind.

We'll see what happens...

I listened to every word. So......what was it that I was supposed to learn from that, Tech? Are you surprised that Hunter was disgustingly and unethically trading on Daddy's name for a BS no-show job in Ukraine?

What did you hear that I'm missing? I believed every word that Archer said.

I did TRULY enjoy that Tucker ended the talk with "he's (Joe B) not allowed to be working on business with foreign governments while he's Vice President, is he?" Naturally, this new "Tucker rule" didn't apply to Kushner or his DaddyTrump, who kept right on running their overseas businesses for all of Trump's term.

[a fan]

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.

Seems to me there's plenty of circumstantial evidence... enough to appoint a special counsel, if the Biden DOJ would allow it of course.

Follow the money mdlax... follow the money...

They already did. Did you notice Tucker didn't bother to ask Archer if he was interviewed by the FBI/DoJ over six years ago?

They finished their report on Hunter's financial dealings in Ukraine way back in Aug of 2020, and Bill Barr was given this report.

They followed the money......and didn't come up with anything. And do I need to point out who was in charge of the FBI, DoJ, and IRS in August of 2020?

So....now what? It's now been 12 years since this stuff happened, Tech. Understand that as I keep pointing out to OS.....if you think that we need to investigate again, that means that you think Trump appointees Wray, Barr, and Rettig (head of the IRS at the time)....were all working in concert to protect Hunter from some invented charge that you and the crew can't even name.

Is this what you think? Because that's where the logic lands, whether you like it or not.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

Seems to me there's plenty of circumstantial evidence... enough for a special counsel, if the Biden DOJ would allow it of course.

Follow the money mdlax... follow the money...

Show me the money.

Years and years and years of opportunity.

Why did the Trump Admin, under either of two AG's not appoint a special counsel?
Oh yeah, there really isn't anything there to justify it...but hey, trying to leverage defensive weapons in exchange for an announcement of an "investigation"...that WAS worth doing...note, just an announcement would suffice as they didn't expect any actual evidence...didn't need there to be a real investigation...

That's the MAGA blowhards, tech. That's all they actually want...

Don't fall for it.

So I'll raise your "don't for for it" with, you shouldn't have such a closed mind.

We'll see what happens...

I see nothing but MAGA lying for years now...when they start telling the truth, let me know and I'll be happy to look at it. With an open mind!

Remember, I'm a lifelong Republican...it's not as if I had ever voted D for President previously.

I'll look forward to the day when I can vote R again without being ashamed of the way the Party is behaving.

[a fan]

Seems to me there's plenty of circumstantial evidence... enough to appoint a special counsel, if the Biden DOJ would allow it of course.

A. the Trump admin's DoJ, FBI, and IRS already did what you are asking. Hunter just took a plea deal on what they found. If Wray, Barr, or Rettig found felonies that Hunter isn't being charged with....don't you think the House would have put them on the stand to address tech's questions?

B. you should have directed your desire for a special counsel to the Trump Admin. waaaaay back in 2018.

[Seacoaster(1)]

There have to be creditable dots to connect. Not seeing them here, except in the sense of "politicians are bad and on the make always and therefore Joe is bad and took money we can't find a trace of but we are sure exists." You sound a little crazy.

Hey seacoaster, who's a bigger "giant" for you these days?... Schiff or Dan Goldman?

This, I guess, is you being clever, right? High school stuff at best. Goldman is a pretty smart guy, but I suppose he’s no tech37, keyboard jockey of the right, posing as a moderate. Try contributing something.

[MDlaxfan76]

To be fair, Schiff and Goldman are no longer federal prosecutors, they are now politicians.

They may be smart, honest, tough-minded, but there should be no expectation that they are non-partisan. They will, indeed should, be advocates for their partisan interests, utilizing their experiences and skills with the law and in communication, to advance their perspective on behalf of their constituents and in accordance with their duties under the Constitution. That's what we should expect (and indeed respect) of politicians regardless of party.

However, if any politician use deceit or dishonesty to do so, their credibility and influence should be subject to much greater rejection than simply that they have a partisan POV.

And that includes from their Party as well. Deceit and dishonesty degrades the credibility of the group if not rejected by it.

And that's the problem with the MAGA GOP.

[PizzaSnake]

To be fair, Schiff and Goldman are no longer federal prosecutors, they are now politicians.

They may be smart, honest, tough-minded, but there should be no expectation that they are non-partisan. They will, indeed should, be advocates for their partisan interests, utilizing their experiences and skills with the law and in communication, to advance their perspective on behalf of their constituents and in accordance with their duties under the Constitution. That's what we should expect (and indeed respect) of politicians regardless of party.

However, if any politician use deceit or dishonesty to do so, their credibility and influence should be subject to much greater rejection than simply that they have a partisan POV.

And that includes from their Party as well. Deceit and dishonesty degrades the credibility of the group if not rejected by it.

And that's the problem with the MAGA GOP.

“And that’s a problem with the MAGA GOP.”

FIFY…

[youthathletics]

However, if any politician use deceit or dishonesty to do so, their credibility and influence should be subject to much greater rejection than simply that they have a partisan POV.

This is our entire stance on all things Biden. You guys are picking a fight, where you acutally agree with us, but are digging in like an alabama tick on...'show me the facts'.

Even Archer openly admitted that the shenanigans with Biden in the room on a speaker phone call was ~ "an abuse of soft power" (something along those lines).

Why so many keep bringing up Trump is a weak look, what it really says is they are greatly partisan, only care about a scoreboard, are willing to look the other way, rather than finding common ground or even acknowledging that yea.....I can see where you are coming or yes, been there and seen that in my career, or others have been indicted for similar. But no, it's....let's all pile on tech, OS, craddle and YA and tell them how smart we are and how very dumb they are.

In your defense.....I do see you make this attempt, but its often buried with subtitles in the middle of your logorrhea replies. And Afan will eventually concede or meet you halfway, once he figures out you heard him.

[Seacoaster(1)]

However, if any politician use deceit or dishonesty to do so, their credibility and influence should be subject to much greater rejection than simply that they have a partisan POV.

This is our entire stance on all things Biden. You guys are picking a fight, where you acutally agree with us, but are digging in like an alabama tick on...'show me the facts'.

Even Archer openly admitted that the shenanigans with Biden in the room on a speaker phone call was ~ "an abuse of soft power" (something along those lines).

Why so many keep bringing up Trump is a weak look, what it really says is they are greatly partisan, only care about a scoreboard, are willing to look the other way, rather than finding common ground or even acknowledging that yea.....I can see where you are coming or yes, been there and seen that in my career, or others have been indicted for similar. But no, it's....let's all pile on tech, OS, craddle and YA and tell them how smart we are and how very dumb they are.

In your defense.....I do see you make this attempt, but its often buried with subtitles in the middle of your logorrhea replies. And Afan will eventually concede or meet you halfway, once he figures out you heard him.

YA, saying “show me the facts” that demonstrate that the current President was involved, while VP, in a corrupt influence peddling and access scheme is not “digging in like an Alabama tick.” It is a completely basic request. There is no indictment backed by facts/receipts/transfer orders/SWIFT records or whatever is necessary to show that Joe participated and was rewarded with percentages or payments. Comer the Gomer has been at this forever. Ron Johnson’s career in the Senate has been devoted to this pursuit. And still, no documents or testimony tying Joe to any payment of money originating from a foreign power or business that I have seen. Archer’s testimony appears to have been that “Hunter showed off and got Dad on the line, maybe got us invited us to black tie events.” These things — maybe icky — are not only not illegal, but likely have happened in every government interfacing with private businessmen for hundreds of years.

If something of evidentiary quality surfaces that shows real conduit between the office of the VP, and payment to the VP by proxy or directly, my guess is that plenty of folks will jump on board and toast Joe. But thus far, it’s a clown show of misinformation and assumption and conjecture.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1687 ... 00/photo/1

[youthathletics]

However, if any politician use deceit or dishonesty to do so, their credibility and influence should be subject to much greater rejection than simply that they have a partisan POV.

This is our entire stance on all things Biden. You guys are picking a fight, where you acutally agree with us, but are digging in like an alabama tick on...'show me the facts'.

Even Archer openly admitted that the shenanigans with Biden in the room on a speaker phone call was ~ "an abuse of soft power" (something along those lines).

Why so many keep bringing up Trump is a weak look, what it really says is they are greatly partisan, only care about a scoreboard, are willing to look the other way, rather than finding common ground or even acknowledging that yea.....I can see where you are coming or yes, been there and seen that in my career, or others have been indicted for similar. But no, it's....let's all pile on tech, OS, craddle and YA and tell them how smart we are and how very dumb they are.

In your defense.....I do see you make this attempt, but its often buried with subtitles in the middle of your logorrhea replies. And Afan will eventually concede or meet you halfway, once he figures out you heard him.

YA, saying “show me the facts” that demonstrate that the current President was involved, while VP, in a corrupt influence peddling and access scheme is not “digging in like an Alabama tick.” It is a completely basic request. There is no indictment backed by facts/receipts/transfer orders/SWIFT records or whatever is necessary to show that Joe participated and was rewarded with percentages or payments. Comer the Gomer has been at this forever. Ron Johnson’s career in the Senate has been devoted to this pursuit. And still, no documents or testimony tying Joe to any payment of money originating from a foreign power or business that I have seen. Archer’s testimony appears to have been that “Hunter showed off and got Dad on the line, maybe got us invited us to black tie events.” These things — maybe icky — are not only not illegal, but likely have happened in every government interfacing with private businessmen for hundreds of years.

If something of evidentiary quality surfaces that shows real conduit between the office of the VP, and payment to the VP by proxy or directly, my guess is that plenty of folks will jump on board and toast Joe. But thus far, it’s a clown show of misinformation and assumption and conjecture.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1687 ... 00/photo/1

Plenty of MOB boss attorneys running around with the very same attitude....you in on the cut?

[MDlaxfan76]

However, if any politician use deceit or dishonesty to do so, their credibility and influence should be subject to much greater rejection than simply that they have a partisan POV.

This is our entire stance on all things Biden. You guys are picking a fight, where you acutally agree with us, but are digging in like an alabama tick on...'show me the facts'.

Even Archer openly admitted that the shenanigans with Biden in the room on a speaker phone call was ~ "an abuse of soft power" (something along those lines).

Why so many keep bringing up Trump is a weak look, what it really says is they are greatly partisan, only care about a scoreboard, are willing to look the other way, rather than finding common ground or even acknowledging that yea.....I can see where you are coming or yes, been there and seen that in my career, or others have been indicted for similar. But no, it's....let's all pile on tech, OS, craddle and YA and tell them how smart we are and how very dumb they are.

In your defense.....I do see you make this attempt, but its often buried with subtitles in the middle of your logorrhea replies. And Afan will eventually concede or meet you halfway, once he figures out you heard him.

But here's the problem, YA. I expect a politician like Biden or Bush or...to be subject to critique for all sorts of possible complaints, including those which impugn their character...and I generally give them the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions within a rather sordid game of hard ball at times. I disagreed vehemently for instance with those who believe that W knowingly lied about WMD in Iraq so as to justify the invasion; I disagreed vehemently with those who said that Cheney supported the war so as to financially profit from it...I could be wrong on each, but I give them the benefit of the doubt. By contrast, I was totally opposed to Bill Clinton as his character was clearly exposed through his repeated infidelities and abuse of power in attaining sex...I didn't need the Lewinsky scandal to confirm my view that it was a very damaging mistake to put him in the WH as our representative to young people and to the world...at the same time, I could admire his political acumen. But to me, character matters.

I'm certainly no longtime fan or defender of Joe Biden, nor am I a Democrat or even Independent. Nope, I've voted over and over and over again for Republicans. Sometimes I've been disappointed, but rarely.

So, I don't have a knee jerk bias in favor of a Dem, much less a knee jerk negative response to an R.

So...what's broken that?
Obviously it's the most dishonest, disgraceful POS who ever attained his Party's nomination...and that's saying something. Even then I was unwilling to vote for Clinton who I saw as venal and grasping, dishonest...not at the same scale as Trump, but definitely enough to justify a protest vote instead.

I just don't see ANYTHING remotely as disgusting in Biden's character. Not perfect, for sure. But not a shred of actual evidence that he's the kind of disgusting POS that Trump is. Not remotely close. "abuse of soft power" OK, so what's new? Not even remotely close to illegal. And it's speculative at that...

Now, if you were show me an alternative with what I believe to be close to flawless character, that could sway me, as long as they are reasonably moderate in their policy views, whether conservative or liberal. Romney for instance easily had my vote, though I respected Obama and his character. Tilt for me went to Romney; he's slightly more conservative than me but I respected him, my wife knew him from decades earlier so we followed his career.

Now, if you had ever been as clear about Trump's obviously criminal, anti-democracy, dishonest, cheating POS character as I am, you'd have some credibility when you say you suspect that Biden doesn't have good character...

And I'd say, maybe he doesn't...I'll keep an open mind...
But we have a binary choice to make.

How's that for "logorrhea"?

[Seacoaster(1)]

However, if any politician use deceit or dishonesty to do so, their credibility and influence should be subject to much greater rejection than simply that they have a partisan POV.

This is our entire stance on all things Biden. You guys are picking a fight, where you acutally agree with us, but are digging in like an alabama tick on...'show me the facts'.

Even Archer openly admitted that the shenanigans with Biden in the room on a speaker phone call was ~ "an abuse of soft power" (something along those lines).

Why so many keep bringing up Trump is a weak look, what it really says is they are greatly partisan, only care about a scoreboard, are willing to look the other way, rather than finding common ground or even acknowledging that yea.....I can see where you are coming or yes, been there and seen that in my career, or others have been indicted for similar. But no, it's....let's all pile on tech, OS, craddle and YA and tell them how smart we are and how very dumb they are.

In your defense.....I do see you make this attempt, but its often buried with subtitles in the middle of your logorrhea replies. And Afan will eventually concede or meet you halfway, once he figures out you heard him.

YA, saying “show me the facts” that demonstrate that the current President was involved, while VP, in a corrupt influence peddling and access scheme is not “digging in like an Alabama tick.” It is a completely basic request. There is no indictment backed by facts/receipts/transfer orders/SWIFT records or whatever is necessary to show that Joe participated and was rewarded with percentages or payments. Comer the Gomer has been at this forever. Ron Johnson’s career in the Senate has been devoted to this pursuit. And still, no documents or testimony tying Joe to any payment of money originating from a foreign power or business that I have seen. Archer’s testimony appears to have been that “Hunter showed off and got Dad on the line, maybe got us invited us to black tie events.” These things — maybe icky — are not only not illegal, but likely have happened in every government interfacing with private businessmen for hundreds of years.

If something of evidentiary quality surfaces that shows real conduit between the office of the VP, and payment to the VP by proxy or directly, my guess is that plenty of folks will jump on board and toast Joe. But thus far, it’s a clown show of misinformation and assumption and conjecture.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1687 ... 00/photo/1

Plenty of MOB boss attorneys running around with the very same attitude....you in on the cut?

So now I’m akin to a Mob boss attorney because I prefer evidence of criminal conduct. OK. You really are kind of bobblehead here.

Have you read the transcript?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna97953

[a fan]

However, if any politician use deceit or dishonesty to do so, their credibility and influence should be subject to much greater rejection than simply that they have a partisan POV.

This is our entire stance on all things Biden

No. It isn't. Not even close.

You, OS, and now Tech with his "follow the money" are implying that Bill Barr, Wray, and IRS-head Rettig are in on a conspiracy to hide Hunter's greater felonies from the American public.

And if you DON'T believe that? Great news, we can kill the thread, and move on.

Here's your chance to tell us that the above Trump-appointees investigated all of Hunter's corrupt nonsense, and the DoJ got a plea based on what they found.

Go ahead, fellas. Tell us we're picking fight where none exists. I'd be DELIGHTED to drop the subject.

Even Archer openly admitted that the shenanigans with Biden in the room on a speaker phone call was ~ "an abuse of soft power"

OF COURSE IT WAS. Find a poster who doesn't confirm that, my man. Been saying it from the word go.

But you're fibbing here........that ain't what you and the crew are alleging: you're alleging a conspiracy by three different departments to cover up larger felonies that they found on Hunter, yet weren't charged.

Tech? He's calling for yet ANOTHER investigation into Hunter, after five freaking years of digging. But sure, you guys are just telling us that "Hunter using Daddy's influence is bad".

Why so many keep bringing up Trump is a weak look,

Same claim Pete made two years ago, my man........ that Trump was old news.

Seen any FoxPolls or political polls on who's the runaway leader as YOUR nominee for POTUS in a year, YA? (of course you have, you, like Pete, are playing dumb)

But no, it's....let's all pile on tech, OS, craddle and YA and tell them how smart we are and how very dumb they are.

Nope. You're all VERY smart people. But you're all like veteran MLB batters with a case of the yips whenever the subject of Republicans come up: suddenly, after a lifetime .300 average.....you gents can't hit curveballs.

Then, miraculously, whenever we discuss stuff that has NOTHING to do with R's or D's? You guys are curve balls out of the park like they insulted your mother. Wow! What a coincidence! A Xmas miracle!

[tech37]

There have to be creditable dots to connect. Not seeing them here, except in the sense of "politicians are bad and on the make always and therefore Joe is bad and took money we can't find a trace of but we are sure exists." You sound a little crazy.

Hey seacoaster, who's a bigger "giant" for you these days?... Schiff or Dan Goldman?

This, I guess, is you being clever, right? High school stuff at best. Goldman is a pretty smart guy, but I suppose he’s no tech37, keyboard jockey of the right, posing as a moderate. Try contributing something.

"pretty smart guy"? Like Schiff he's a lying pos.
Sorry my post upset you.