Biden partner Devon Archer testimony thread

[Rightguide]

You don’t see the bias in that piece? Find something real.

The “Democrats’ coup”

You provide “evidence” by quoting the defendant criticizing the case?

Keep spinning.

Let’s see you break down the indictment against Trump - in your own words instead of cut and pasting your favorite Maga headpiece.

I see the facts in the piece you missed.

 

[AlexBailey]

I see the facts in the piece you missed.

You’re using a straw man argument against the Prosecutor while ignoring the facts in the indictments.

 

[HisArpy]

There's much more than those two words, but they sum it up. Trump is a liar and that's his defense in one of his cases (it's hard to keep up). That it's his 1A right to lie.

Which means that the indictment, which attempts to prosecute someone for lying, violates the Constitution.

And you just agreed.

Yet here you are pounding the drums for a conviction on something you just agreed isn't illegal. Which shows exactly what kind of person you are.

 

[HisArpy]

Your view that Trump didn't want to steal the election is false. Otherwise he wouldn't have complained to Mike Pence that he was 'too honest'.

You're a fucking clown.

EVERYONE has the right to jump up and down after the game is over and shout that the other guys cheated.

It might be poor sportsmanship, but it's STILL NOT ILLEGAL.

And here you are trying to say it is...

 

[Bray123]

Which means that the indictment, which attempts to prosecute someone for lying, violates the Constitution.

And you just agreed.

Yet here you are pounding the drums for a conviction on something you just agreed isn't illegal. Which shows exactly what kind of person you are.

I hear that Sidney 'Kraken' Powell is one of the co-conspirators. You're an expert, you should be able to get her acquitted. Plus, she might be interested in some of your incest fantasies.

 

[Bray123]

Well if THAT is the standard in order to be prosecuted, name a politician that shouldn’t be prosecuted. Political speech is protected by 1A as it should be.

Shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre is not protected, neither is 'Fight like hell' at a riot.

 

[HisArpy]

I hear that Sidney 'Kraken' Powell is one of the co-conspirators. You're an expert, you should be able to get her acquitted. Plus, she might be interested in some of your incest fantasies.

Poor baby, getting all foamy mouthed because someone pointed out your fuckups.

You should see a doctor about that. If you can find one who won't chop off your dick first.

 

[HisArpy]

Shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre is not protected, neither is 'Fight like hell' at a riot.

Yes it is.

You can shout "FIRE!" all you want.

What you aren't protected from are the consequences and harm your shouting caused.

So it seems that ONCE AGAIN, you're wrong.

 

[Bray123]

Yes it is.

You can shout "FIRE!" all you want.

What you aren't protected from are the consequences and harm your shouting caused.

So it seems that ONCE AGAIN, you're wrong.

So you're not a lawyer after all. Those people who called you out were correct all along.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

 

[HisArpy]

So you're not a lawyer after all. Those people who called you out were correct all along.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

This is from your linky:

The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, in which the Supreme Court held that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

2 steps to this inquiry:

1. The state cannot forbid speech EVEN IF that speech advocates the use of force or violation of the law,

2. UNLESS such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action (ie a riot) and "is likely to" incite of produce that result.


Imminent lawless action, "such as a riot," is not the same as causing a panic in a theater.

Further, your bullshit theory would prevent ANYONE from shouting "fire!" in a theater EVEN IF there was an actual fire because of the injuries which might occur in the panic to escape the building.

So, it seems as if I'm right, and you're still a clueless klown.

 

[picsonly]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686432308629303296

 

[Bray123]

This is from your linky:




2 steps to this inquiry:

1. The state cannot forbid speech EVEN IF that speech advocates the use of force or violation of the law,

2. UNLESS such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action (ie a riot) and "is likely to" incite of produce that result.


Imminent lawless action, "such as a riot," is not the same as causing a panic in a theater.

Further, your bullshit theory would prevent ANYONE from shouting "fire!" in a theater EVEN IF there was an actual fire because of the injuries which might occur in the panic to escape the building.

So, it seems as if I'm right, and you're still a clueless klown.

Shouting 'Fire' is OK if there is a fire.
If there isn't and people get hurt you're going to jail.

That doesn't mean that you're protected from shouting it.

 

[Lazaran]

This is from your linky:




2 steps to this inquiry:

1. The state cannot forbid speech EVEN IF that speech advocates the use of force or violation of the law,

2. UNLESS such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action (ie a riot) and "is likely to" incite of produce that result.


Imminent lawless action, "such as a riot," is not the same as causing a panic in a theater.

Further, your bullshit theory would prevent ANYONE from shouting "fire!" in a theater EVEN IF there was an actual fire because of the injuries which might occur in the panic to escape the building.

So, it seems as if I'm right, and you're still a clueless klown.

•
Hole. E. Fuck.

Harpy is having ANOTHER epic MELTDOWN.

 

[Comshaw]

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., acknowledged that the Republicans' widely-hyped witness in their probe of the Biden family's business dealings "didn't know anything" about unverified allegations that President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden had accepted millions in bribes.

House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and fellow Republicans had hyped a closed-door session with former Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer as part of their growing Biden probe that has yielded no actual proof.

Archer during the nearly five-hour testimony said that President Biden was not party to any of his son's business deals and that Hunter had merely tried to sell the illusion that he was providing access to his father, Democrats on the panel said according to The New York Times.


Archer also said President Biden met and spoke with his son's international business associates several times as Hunter Biden tried to boost his business but did not discuss any business. He said Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone to talk to business partners about 20 times over a decade, members of the panel told the Times.

Comer said that Archer testified that President Biden was put on the phone to sell the family "brand."

And so goes the vaunted Devon Archer testimony that was going to hang ol' slow Joe. What do you say about a hambuger with no paddy?? "where's the beef!"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/truly-stunning-republican-admits-hyped-124853436.html

Comshaw

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

And so goes the vaunted Devon Archer testimony that was going to hang ol' slow Joe. What do you say about a hambuger with no paddy?? "where's the beef!"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/truly-stunning-republican-admits-hyped-124853436.html

Comshaw

Not sure who told you it was going to “hang ol’ slow Joe.” It was further affirmation that he repeatedly lied to the public. Lying to the public is not a crime.

 

[Lazaran]

•

They. Got. Him. Now.



Just take the L BabyBoobs.

Just .

Take.

The .

L.



BabyBoobs

 

[Comshaw]

Not sure who told you it was going to “hang ol’ slow Joe.” It was further affirmation that he repeatedly lied to the public. Lying to the public is not a crime.

While I can't point to an instance of you doing so, there are numerous times others have done exactly that. As in:

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) reacted to Devon Archer’s testimony on Monday, saying it was a “huge step toward implicating Joe Biden” in violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

As far as lying to the public, really? You support the Donald, who was telling lies at the clip of several dozen A DAY during his presidency, but are going to get all pious about MAYBE (no evidence he has btw) Joe telling a lie that means nothing?

Na dude. I am a people watcher. I see you trying to parse your words so when a story falls apart you have plausible deniability, as in "Well that's not what I said" while trying to make whatever it is you are obliquely attacking appear much more despicable than what it really is.

you can fool some of the people some of the time AND
you can fool all of the people some of the time BUT
you ain't never gunna' fool someone who has been fooled that way before.

Nice try though, I gotta give you that.


Comshaw

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Seems like you have an axe to grind with Ivanka.

No I have no axe to grind with her, I mention it because Boomer rails on Hunter Biden, an non elected child of the President. Yet Boomer at no point in time during the Trump years seemed to care about the daughter and member of Trump's Presidential staff making deals with China.

Nobody is perfect nor a Saint. But comparing those two President’s kids seems on its face, very disingenuous.

lol right. Were not comparing apples to apples here Mayhem, as much as you would like to. Ivanka was a part of the Presidents team. Hunter has never served on his father administration. That is a bit of a difference. Maybe think about it.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Again, just like I never discussed anything with the doctor on the speaker phone with my parents. Or if they were having a “business conversation” and I walked in to get a bite to eat, I am not in the discussion.

But, your ground breaking testimony only gets him taking with son about casual things. Which is right in line about his statements of no discussions of business.

Maybe you can get a recorded phone conversation where Joe is asking for something-say dirt on the Cheeto in exchange for an aid package??

Oh wait, we have that “perfect call” already.

Try harder please.

Joe repeatedly insisted he knew nothing about Hunter’s business activities and never discussed business with his son. That was always a laughable line. Now we hear that Hunter got dad on the speaker phone 20+ times as well some in person meetings with his foreign business associates. It’s called influence peddling.

You and I both know Joe isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he’d have to be in a coma to not be aware of the money Hunter and other family members were getting paid, and why Hunter was getting him in front of these people again and again. It wasn’t for Joe’s weather reports. Joe knew full well what his son was doing. The concerns were even raised with Obama by senior staff while Joe served as his point person for Ukraine and Hunter served on the Burisma board as an influence provider.

The lie has been exposed which is why Biden and his apologists have suddenly changed the story.

 

[Lazaran]

•
Gotta give BabyBoobs “credit” for fully committing to their lying and gaslighting even AFTER their entire bullshit narrative got DESTROYED by Devon Archer’s “testimony”.



BabyBoobs

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

While I can't point to an instance of you doing so, there are numerous times others have done exactly that. As in:

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) reacted to Devon Archer’s testimony on Monday, saying it was a “huge step toward implicating Joe Biden” in violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

As far as lying to the public, really? You support the Donald, who was telling lies at the clip of several dozen A DAY during his presidency, but are going to get all pious about MAYBE (no evidence he has btw) Joe telling a lie that means nothing?

Na dude. I am a people watcher. I see you trying to parse your words so when a story falls apart you have plausible deniability, as in "Well that's not what I said" while trying to make whatever it is you are obliquely attacking appear much more despicable than what it really is.

you can fool some of the people some of the time AND
you can fool all of the people some of the time BUT
you ain't never gunna' fool someone who has been fooled that way before.

Nice try though, I gotta give you that.


Comshaw

Of course it’s a huge step towards implicating Hunter for a violation of FARA. In its admission that Hunter’s attorneys were wrong in their belief that Hunter was immune from future prosecution last week, the DOJ said the investigation into the president’s son is ongoing. The judge actually cited FARA as an example in her questioning.

Trump has told and continues to tell lies to the public often. Lying to the public is not a crime.

Lying under oath to law enforcement, a grand jury, or Congress is a felony. Clinton was impeached and disbarred for it. If he hadn’t been president, he could have have been charged and become a convicted felon. It’s one of the more serious charges Trump is facing in the documents case.

Biden didn’t lie under oath about the laptop or his knowledge of Hunter’s business shenanigans. He just lied to reporters and the public at large about. Now he’s been flagged for it.

Both men carry stains of dishonesty and corruption into the 2024 election. Voters will be the jury. The polls show a dead heat right now. The polls also show voters are dissatisfied with the choice they might have to make.

 

[Lazaran]

•

Trump has told and continues to tell lies to the public often. Lying to the public is not a crime.

Voters will be the jury.

No, BabyBoobs, an ACTUAL JURY is going to decide the rapey, racist, misogynistic, corrupt orange traitor’s fate over the criminal acts the orange POS committed.

See also: E. Jean Carroll.

Hope that ^ helps.



BabyBoobs

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

That’s a good point, actually! I am not informed on it. What deals and for who’s benefit?

To be clear, I’ve railed on President Biden for enabling his son to be paid millions from corrupt Ukrainian and hostile Chinese foreign nationals for no reason other than his relationship to the Vice President of the United States. I’ve railed on President Biden for vigorously and repeatedly lying about it to the American people, and more recently I’ve called attention to the president’s revised story in the aftermath of Devon Archer’s interview. I’ve also railed on Biden for his treatment of his granddaughter, but have noted that public blowback has caused him to begin making amends for that.

 

[Lazaran]

•

Hunter!!! Hunter!!! Hunter!!!



BabyBoobs

 

[Comshaw]

Of course it’s a huge step towards implicating Hunter for a violation of FARA. In its admission that Hunter’s attorneys were wrong in their belief that Hunter was immune from future prosecution last week, the DOJ said the investigation into the president’s son is ongoing. The judge actually cited FARA as an example in her questioning.

So? Other than the committee's attempt to connect Joe to Hunter's dealings, what Hunter did or didn't do has NOTHING to do with the government or the committee's investigation. The ONLY reason the committee should be investigating Hunter is to establish a connection with his father to nefarious dealings, which after years of an "investigation" by the committee, nothing of substance has been found. So whether Hunter violated FARA or not has NOTHING to do with the committee's stated purpose, and thus is a nothing burger as far as the president the is concerned.

Trump has told and continues to tell lies to the public often. Lying to the public is not a crime.

Biden didn’t lie under oath about the laptop or his knowledge of Hunter’s business shenanigans. He just lied to reporters and the public at large about. Now he’s been flagged for it.

So what you're saying is it is acceptable for Trump to lie continuously, but Biden's credibility is destroyed with one perceived lie? I say perceived because there is no proof he did lie. He said he knew nothing about his son's business dealings. Archer said that the phone calls he witnessed were about innocuous everyday things and business was never discussed. It seems to me those two things jibe. And it DOESN'T matter what it looks like or what people think it is, it only matters what can be proven. And so far NOTHING has been presented to show Joe was lying.

Both men carry stains of dishonesty and corruption into the 2024 election. Voters will be the jury. The polls show a dead heat right now. The polls also show voters are dissatisfied with the choice they might have to make.

That all depends on which channel you watch and I can tell where you get your "news". For myself, I cannot believe that the American public would elect a convicted felon (because he will be by then) someone who lies to them with impunity, who wants to be an autocrat, a Kim Jong lite so to speak. My prognostication is it ain't gunna' happen. I think enough people have awakened from the Pied Piper Trump trance and opened their eyes that they either won't vote or will hold their noses and vote for Biden.

The problem here is there are a lot of people like me out here. We would love to have a legitimate conservative candidate, a choice. One who is concerned about the country and the people and not just themselves.
'nuff said.

Comshaw