transcript of Archer at the hill

originally posted by: Threadbare
Thoughts on Archer testifying that he has no knowledge of Joe being involved in Hunter's business with Burisma?

It seems like all you have is Hunter trying to clout chase his dad. How is that any different than what Tom Hanks' son does or that guy whose dad died on the submersible.

Just keep moving that Goal post mate don't worry no one notices .

Though it's gotta be getting heavy by now .

a reply to: face23785

Because: the ENDS justify the MEANS and in their view they are bringing in a world that is fair and just and everyone is equal

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Predicting that he didn't have any bombshell information and then pointing out that was in fact true is moving the goal posts?

a reply to: Gandalf77

The republicans still haven't proven anything of substance.

Look for that In Bold Print on the USA's Tombstone.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Predicting that he didn't have any bombshell information and then pointing out that was in fact true is moving the goal posts?

It seems like all you have is Hunter trying to clout chase his dad. How is that any different than what Tom Hanks' son does or that guy whose dad died on the submersible.

That is called moving the Goal post because a two weeks ago you were still on the " Joe Knows nothing there is no proof Train".

You and others keep saying Mr.Archer said "Under Oath " he knows nothing about Joe Biden . Like it matters ? Being under oath means diddly squat , How many politicians have we watched lie under oath ? .

Archer will keep his Mouth shut about anything of substance or he will do life in prison or more likely he will commit Suicide.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

So you're claiming that Archer saying he has no evidence of Biden being involved in Hunter's business is proof that Biden is involved in Hunter's business?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

So you're claiming that Archer saying he has no evidence of Biden being involved in Hunter's business is proof that Biden is involved in Hunter's business?

Threadbare listen to me very closely .

I don't care what Archer says in front of some Congressional panel or Court room , We have all seen the Whats App messages and Emails and assorted documents on the Laptop .

Now your faith in 'Under-oath' statements and the Justice Department is truly touching , But I will use my own mind and two eyes to see what is clearly there .

Hunter Biden used his Fathers influence to collect millions of dollars and Joe was right there the whole time taking his cut or even leading the Deal . If you refuse to believe that it's fine live in your world of Self Deception I understand.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

So you're claiming that Archer saying he has no evidence of Biden being involved in Hunter's business is proof that Biden is involved in Hunter's business?

So....about that Tucker interview.......

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

So you're claiming that Archer saying he has no evidence of Biden being involved in Hunter's business is proof that Biden is involved in Hunter's business?

are you saying that Biden raped nuns?

Quit being ignorant. This testimony negates the lies Joe had never spoken to Hunter about his business deals. Hunter used Joe as his prop. He would call daddy when he needed the folks he was swindling to believe he could produce his daddy in an instant. He was selling access to Joe.

So let's talk about the 1.3 million, the Russian mayor of Moscow's wife, and the reason she didn't make the sanctions list. OH, and we can use the timing of each to validate or debunk the whole thing. Got the gnads?

a reply to: network dude

Hunter used Joe as his prop. He would call daddy when he needed the folks he was swindling to believe he could produce his daddy in an instant. He was selling access to Joe.

Not entirely true...sorry I am slowly reading through all 140+ pages.

The statement in bold is from Archer..

BY MR. MANDOLFO:
23 Q And was part of that value him bringing his dad to the Ukraine?
24 A I think in here it's clear that he's not bringing his dad, but he's saying, you
25 know, "I'm going to get credit for it."


27
1 Q But when you say "get credit" --
2 A He's not -- he was not determining -- he wasn't setting his dad's schedule to
3 bring him to Ukraine, I don't think.

Hunter just being a dirty stain trying to make it seem like he is orchestrating things so that he can claim the credit with Burisma, and ultimately his pay out.

a reply to: network dude

Here is another interesting part...

Archer does not directly state the Hunter was used to pressure Joe, but rather to use his name (brand) in lobbying efforts in D.C.

Mr. Biggs. So why do you think they were asking Mr. Biden for D.C. help if they
23 had -- I'm assuming what you're saying is they might have had some kind of lobbying
24 group on retainer, perhaps.
25 Mr. Archer. Yes.


36
1 Mr. Biggs. So why do you think they were asking Hunter Biden for D.C. help?
2 Mr. Archer. I mean, why?
3 Mr. Biggs. I mean, what did you take away from that?
4 Mr. Archer. Well, I mean, he was a lobbyist and an expert and obviously he
5 carried, you know, a very powerful name. So I think it was -- that's what they were
6 asking for.
7 They had -- they also -- you know, there was a firm, Blue Star Strategies, that was
8 hired to be, you know, kind of the -- I don't know if they were a lobbying firm or just
9 strategic advisory. It's still unclear what the difference is. But, you know, that was
10 part of the mix.
11 But it was -- yeah, it was a high-pressure environment, and there was -- there was
12 constant requests for help.

Archer was directly asked about his opinion, and he did not clearly state that it was expected that Hunter was to speak to Joe.... This is very interesting. If Archer was entirely hostile to the Bidens, then you would expect him to come out and directly make these connections.

originally posted by: Itherael
a reply to: network dude

Here is another interesting part...

Archer does not directly state the Hunter was used to pressure Joe, but rather to use his name (brand) in lobbying efforts in D.C.

Mr. Biggs. So why do you think they were asking Mr. Biden for D.C. help if they
23 had -- I'm assuming what you're saying is they might have had some kind of lobbying
24 group on retainer, perhaps.
25 Mr. Archer. Yes.


36
1 Mr. Biggs. So why do you think they were asking Hunter Biden for D.C. help?
2 Mr. Archer. I mean, why?
3 Mr. Biggs. I mean, what did you take away from that?
4 Mr. Archer. Well, I mean, he was a lobbyist and an expert and obviously he
5 carried, you know, a very powerful name. So I think it was -- that's what they were
6 asking for.
7 They had -- they also -- you know, there was a firm, Blue Star Strategies, that was
8 hired to be, you know, kind of the -- I don't know if they were a lobbying firm or just
9 strategic advisory. It's still unclear what the difference is. But, you know, that was
10 part of the mix.
11 But it was -- yeah, it was a high-pressure environment, and there was -- there was
12 constant requests for help.

Archer was directly asked about his opinion, and he did not clearly state that it was expected that Hunter was to speak to Joe.... This is very interesting. If Archer was entirely hostile to the Bidens, then you would expect him to come out and directly make these connections.

No, that would be supposition.

originally posted by: Itherael

Hunter just being a dirty stain trying to make it seem like he is orchestrating things so that he can claim the credit with Burisma, and ultimately his pay out.

And you don't see anything wrong with a U.S. President having a compromised son? Nothing at all?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Itherael
a reply to: network dude

Here is another interesting part...

Archer does not directly state the Hunter was used to pressure Joe, but rather to use his name (brand) in lobbying efforts in D.C.

Mr. Biggs. So why do you think they were asking Mr. Biden for D.C. help if they
23 had -- I'm assuming what you're saying is they might have had some kind of lobbying
24 group on retainer, perhaps.
25 Mr. Archer. Yes.


36
1 Mr. Biggs. So why do you think they were asking Hunter Biden for D.C. help?
2 Mr. Archer. I mean, why?
3 Mr. Biggs. I mean, what did you take away from that?
4 Mr. Archer. Well, I mean, he was a lobbyist and an expert and obviously he
5 carried, you know, a very powerful name. So I think it was -- that's what they were
6 asking for.
7 They had -- they also -- you know, there was a firm, Blue Star Strategies, that was
8 hired to be, you know, kind of the -- I don't know if they were a lobbying firm or just
9 strategic advisory. It's still unclear what the difference is. But, you know, that was
10 part of the mix.
11 But it was -- yeah, it was a high-pressure environment, and there was -- there was
12 constant requests for help.

Archer was directly asked about his opinion, and he did not clearly state that it was expected that Hunter was to speak to Joe.... This is very interesting. If Archer was entirely hostile to the Bidens, then you would expect him to come out and directly make these connections.

No, that would be supposition.

That is my point, he didnt go there. So Archer maintains a level of credibility.

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Itherael

Hunter just being a dirty stain trying to make it seem like he is orchestrating things so that he can claim the credit with Burisma, and ultimately his pay out.

And you don't see anything wrong with a U.S. President having a compromised son? Nothing at all?

Are you asking me or telling me that?

If you are asking me, then Yes, it is very wrong...very wrong indeed.

originally posted by: Itherael

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: Itherael

Hunter just being a dirty stain trying to make it seem like he is orchestrating things so that he can claim the credit with Burisma, and ultimately his pay out.

And you don't see anything wrong with a U.S. President having a compromised son? Nothing at all?

Are you asking me or telling me that?

If you are asking me, then Yes, it is very wrong...very wrong indeed.

I'm asking you (see the comma up there?), because your post seems to be saying Biden is a victim of his son. If so, he is compromised and the American citizens needed to know this before the election. Wouldn't you agree? (thats a question)

a reply to: SourGrapes

My posts in this thread are about excerpts from the released transcription of the House Oversight committees interview of Archer, a witness to activities of Hunter Biden.

Yes, i would be concerned with a conflict of interest within the Biden's if a family member was conducting suspicious activities with a foreign country, corporation or both.

a reply to: Itherael

And those "excerpts" show a very compromised U.S. Vice President. The argument is why weren't the U.S. citizens allowed to know he was/is compromised?

Why are the MSM and government officials covering up for this family?

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: Itherael

And those "excerpts" show a very compromised U.S. Vice President. The argument is why weren't the U.S. citizens allowed to know he was/is compromised?

Why are the MSM covering up for this family?

Based on my reading thus far, I would not go far as to say comprised. There has been nothing, so far, that describes a situation where VP Biden was pressured, or promised, or agreed to anything as a result of Biden's tenure at Burisma.

Definitely a conflict of interest!

a reply to: Itherael

To help them get here, Congressional Republicans relied on more than 150 suspicious activity reports as a roadmap to follow what they call the Bidens’ complicated financial money trail.

The confidential reports, called SARs for short, are often routine, with larger financial transactions automatically flagged to the government. The filing of a SARs report is not evidence on its own of misconduct.

But Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee leading the probe, said Wednesday that other types of financial records obtained through congressional subpoenas and lawsuits have now become the focus of their investigation.

The White House dismissed the whole investigation as “yet another political stunt.”

PBS.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), financial institutions are required to assist U.S. government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering, and:

Keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments;

File reports of cash transactions exceeding $10,000 (daily aggregate amount)

Report suspicious activity that might signal criminal activity (e.g., money laundering, tax evasion).

US Treasury