Hunter Biden (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    FullMonte

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages
    1,386
    Reaction score
    2,381
    Age
    56
    Location
    Bossier City
    Offline
    Lost in all the news coverage about what's going on in the US right now is this bit of information.

    The Ukrainian government has completed an audit of thousands of case files related to Burisma. Ruslan Ryaboshapka (the prosecutor general), described by Zelenskiy as "100 percent my person" in the July phone call with president Trump said "I specifically asked prosecutors to check especially carefully those facts about Biden's alleged involvement. They answered that there was nothing of the kind."

    Not that anyone SHOULD be surprised to find out that Hunter Biden was not implicated in something that was done by the CEO of Burisma in his role as a government employee, that happened two years before Biden joined the board.

     
    As you would tell me, you have been lied to by the propagandists you follow. You should probably re-evaluate the people you follow.

    What I posted above has screenshots of the transcripts. The illusion of access came from Goldman and not Archer.
    What I have said numerous times is that I READ THE TRANSCRIPT. So, until you do the same there is one of us relying on other people, but it’s not me.
     
    The DOJ filing disproves what yall have claimed about the Hunter Biden laptop and you talk about me drinking the kool-aid lol. Heaven forbid that you would comment on the DOJ filing.

    Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
    Actually, I disagree. I think it PROVES what all of us have said.

    I don't recall anyone (and if I'm wrong about this, I'll gladly admit it) ever saying that everything that supposedly came from that laptop was fake. What everyone said was that because of the method by which it was obtained, and the number of hands it went through (particularly individuals hostile to Hunter Biden, with a documented history of lying) that everything that was reported about what was on the laptop should be looked at suspiciously.

    The filing by the DOJ clearly says that not everything that was reported to be on the laptop was accurate.
     
    Expose them all. I would support any investigations into exposing corruption in both parties.
    sure seems like you complain about it when trump is involved. in fact you have said its fake despite all the evidence and trump himself saying he has done all the things he has been accused of.
     
    What I have said numerous times is that I READ THE TRANSCRIPT. So, until you do the same there is one of us relying on other people, but it’s not me.
    1000004197.jpg


    Goldman: "it's not about selling access to his father. It's about selling the illusion of access to his father. Is that fair?"

    Archer: "is that fair? I mean, yeah, that is -- I think that's almost fair"

    Goldman: "almost fair. Why almost fair?"

    Archer: "There are touch points and contact points that I can't deny that happened, but nothing of material was discussed. But I can't go on record saying that there was—there was communications," Archer said.

    Archer: "Yeah, there were communications,"



    Archer never said the words illusion of access. Goldman stated that several times because it was obvious that was their way to spin it.

    Archer said Joe was on the phone with his business partners 20 times. Partisan democrats would like people to believe that was just to say high and talk about the weather. 🤣 🤣 🤣
     
    Archer never said the words illusion of access.
    This is just wrong. Monte even showed you where he said it and posted that part of the transcript just a few posts ago. Archer agreed more than once that Hunter was selling the illusion of access. He also testified that Hunter was very careful to not cross any lines of unethical behavior with his father. But you wouldn’t know that because you refuse to just READ THE TRANSCRIPT.

    Honest question: how many times does someone have to post lies that make you look bad when you run over here to post their tweets before you quit trusting them?

    Oh, and going from memory the testimony was that Hunter liked to call his father in front of his business partners to try to impress them, and that it was always just pleasantries. And it was testified that Hunter and his dad talked on the phone every day so it’s not like it was rare for them to talk.
     
    This is just wrong. Monte even showed you where he said it and posted that part of the transcript just a few posts ago. Archer agreed more than once that Hunter was selling the illusion of access. He also testified that Hunter was very careful to not cross any lines of unethical behavior with his father. But you wouldn’t know that because you refuse to just READ THE TRANSCRIPT.

    Honest question: how many times does someone have to post lies that make you look bad when you run over here to post their tweets before you quit trusting them?

    Oh, and going from memory the testimony was that Hunter liked to call his father in front of his business partners to try to impress them, and that it was always just pleasantries. And it was testified that Hunter and his dad talked on the phone every day so it’s not like it was rare for them to talk.
    Hunter never said the words illusion of access. He agreed to the question, but then he said it was almost fair. Why would he say almost?

    He talked to Hunter's business partners 20 times just to be friendly? 🤣 🤣 🤣 Nobody believes that except partisan Democrats.
     
    1000004197.jpg


    Goldman: "it's not about selling access to his father. It's about selling the illusion of access to his father. Is that fair?"

    Archer: "is that fair? I mean, yeah, that is -- I think that's almost fair"

    Goldman: "almost fair. Why almost fair?"

    Archer: "There are touch points and contact points that I can't deny that happened, but
    nothing of material was discussed. But I can't go on record saying that there was—there was communications," Archer said.

    Archer: "Yeah, there were communications,"



    Archer never said the words illusion of access. Goldman stated that several times because it was obvious that was their way to spin it.

    Archer said Joe was on the phone with his business partners 20 times. Partisan democrats would like people to believe that was just to say high and talk about the weather. 🤣 🤣 🤣

    If you are going on the things said by Devon Archer, why do you keep glossing over the part I bolded and underlined for you? NOTHING OF MATERIAL WAS DICSCUSSED. Does that matter at all to you?
     
    Hunter never said the words illusion of access. He agreed to the question, but then he said it was almost fair. Why would he say almost?

    He talked to Hunter's business partners 20 times just to be friendly? 🤣 🤣 🤣 Nobody believes that except partisan Democrats.
    Monte even put the part of the transcript in a post. And you mean Archer not Hunter.
    In the quote below A. is Archer saying the words and agreeing with them.
    I see your "almost fair" (Notice that they don't continue the pages why he explains why 'almost'?) and raise you a "right."

    1705526573230.png


    NOTE: "Right. An illusion of access to his father,..." is Archer's own words confirming that. So the tweet you posted saying that "illusion of access" is not from Archer's testimony is a straight up LIE.
     
    Hunter never said the words illusion of access. He agreed to the question, but then he said it was almost fair. Why would he say almost?

    He talked to Hunter's business partners 20 times just to be friendly? 🤣 🤣 🤣 Nobody believes that except partisan Democrats.
    Honest question. Having never even read the transcript why do you feel so cocksure you know everything about it? You’re just clowning yourself.

    Archer explains everything in the transcript. If you would only read it.
     
    Honest question. Having never even read the transcript why do you feel so cocksure you know everything about it? You’re just clowning yourself.

    Archer explains everything in the transcript. If you would only read it.
    Do you remember how you kept saying he never left the laptop at the computer shop?

    Wrong again:

    1000004203.jpg
     
    Do you remember how you kept saying he never left the laptop at the computer shop?

    Wrong again:

    1000004203.jpg
    I speculated that perhaps he never did. I said it was my opinion that was possible because the shop owner was so shady and changed his story several times. I never claimed to know for sure.

    But here I am admitting I was mistaken. However, the material turned over to the NY Post didn’t all come from the laptop like you said it did. Can you admit you were wrong about that?
     
    I speculated that perhaps he never did. I said it was my opinion that was possible because the shop owner was so shady and changed his story several times. I never claimed to know for sure.

    But here I am admitting I was mistaken. However, the material turned over to the NY Post didn’t all come from the laptop like you said it did. Can you admit you were wrong about that?
    What specifically are you talking about with the NY Post? Are you saying they published something about the laptop that wasn't true?
     
    What specifically are you talking about with the NY Post? Are you saying they published something about the laptop that wasn't true?
    The entire collection of files, that they claimed was “the laptop” actually wasn’t it. It was a bastageized collection of files that had material added and was tampered with by Rudy, Stone and Bannon and who know who else. Some of it possibly came from the laptop, but some of it most definitely did not.

    But you know this already.
     
    The entire collection of files, that they claimed was “the laptop” actually wasn’t it. It was a bastageized collection of files that had material added and was tampered with by Rudy, Stone and Bannon and who know who else. Some of it possibly came from the laptop, but some of it most definitely did not.

    But you know this already.
    But what specifically are you talking about with the NY Post? Did they post something that wasn't from Hunter's laptop that they claimed it was? Be specific.
     
    But what specifically are you talking about with the NY Post? Did they post something that wasn't from Hunter's laptop that they claimed it was? Be specific.
    The entire collection of files was compromised. It had been handled and had material added at several times. We have been over this, it’s been known for a long time. You’re just acting like you don’t know something that has already been covered IN THIS FORUM many times.

    Do you think this makes you seem informed? Because it only exposes you as being willfully ignorant about what we have discussed.
     
    The entire collection of files was compromised. It had been handled and had material added at several times. We have been over this, it’s been known for a long time. You’re just acting like you don’t know something that has already been covered IN THIS FORUM many times.

    Do you think this makes you seem informed? Because it only exposes you as being willfully ignorant about what we have discussed.
    I'm aware that some people tried or added additional things to the files once they got them, but there nothing indicated that the material they the NY Post published wasn't accurate.

    And since you can point out specifically what the NY Post supposedly published that wasn't accurate I will assume you don't know of anything and are just continuing to parrot incorrect information from Hunter's attorney. You did that with the claim that Hunter never left the laptop at the computer shop.
     
    Per WaPo‘s expert analysis of the NY Post collection of files:

    “The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years.”

    The NY Post presented it as “Hunter Biden’s laptop” when it clearly had been tampered with repeatedly.

    Will you admit you were wrong to say that the NYPost ”laptop” was verified and accurate?
     
    I'm aware that some people tried or added additional things to the files once they got them, but there nothing indicated that the material they the NY Post published wasn't accurate.

    And since you can point out specifically what the NY Post supposedly published that wasn't accurate I will assume you don't know of anything and are just continuing to parrot incorrect information from Hunter's attorney. You did that with the claim that Hunter never left the laptop at the computer shop.
    The entire claim by the NY Post was inaccurate because they had a collection of files that included stuff not from the original laptop but added later.

    The entire premise of their story was wrong and you just dismiss it.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom