The Hunter Biden Thread

#6,226
#6,226
RockyTop85 said:
You can read the testimony, where a former Burisma board member says that Burisma didn’t want Shokin fired.

Or you can rely on anonymous twitter users who lie about the contents of the transcript.

🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...

I’ve not relied on any anonymous Twitter users for the things I just stated.

Hunter told his own kids his father was taking 1/2 his salary. He was employed for 5 years by this company. We have others on record saying he was paid for Joe’s influence. Joe was speaker phone conversations during their board meetings. Hunter says his dad was involved in his own text messages.

That’s a lot of smoke. It seems we need Joes bank records to know if there’s any fire here
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, AM64, Orangeburst and 1 other person
#6,227
#6,227
RockyTop85 said:
You can read the testimony, where a former Burisma board member says that Burisma didn’t want Shokin fired.

Or you can rely on anonymous twitter users who lie about the contents of the transcript.

🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding...if Burisma didn't want shokin fired,...but Joe got him fire by threatening funding....that doesn't look good...
 
#6,228
#6,228
RockyTop85 said:
You can read the testimony, where a former Burisma board member says that Burisma didn’t want Shokin fired.

Or you can rely on anonymous twitter users who lie about the contents of the transcript.

🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...


So the testimony of this one Burisma board member
trumps the mountain of evidence that says otherwise? Multiple different testimonies and whisleblowers say otherwise.
 
#6,229
#6,229
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#6,230
#6,230
Vol8188 said:
I’ve not relied on any anonymous Twitter users for the things I just stated.

Hunter told his own kids his father was taking 1/2 his salary. He was employed for 5 years by this company. We have others on record saying he was paid for Joe’s influence. Joe was speaker phone conversations during their board meetings. Hunter says his dad was involved in his own text messages.

That’s a lot of smoke. It seems we need Joes bank records to know if there’s any fire here
Click to expand...

If the case were actually strong, and this witness actually inconsequential, nobody would bother to lie about the contents of his testimony and nobody would believe those lies to be sufficiently consequential to repost them here.

And if the people saying it’s a strong case were actually well informed, they wouldn’t be the target market of the people telling lies that rely on their audience being ignorant of the material they’re lying about; well informed people don’t fall for such things. But there’s a whole cottage industry in political influencer media that has built up around telling lies, like this one, or like the “Kavanaugh got dark money to pay off his loans” that only work on people who are eager to be angry and/or too lazy to check original sources for themselves.

So, have you dug through the evidence enough to rule out that a drug addict with a laptop full of images of himself with hookers might lie to his kids about why he doesn’t have money?
 
#6,231
#6,231
RockyTop85 said:
If the case were actually strong, and this witness actually inconsequential, nobody would bother to lie about the contents of his testimony and nobody would believe those lies to be sufficiently consequential to repost them here.

And if the people saying it’s a strong case were actually well informed, they wouldn’t be the target market of the people telling lies that rely on their audience being ignorant of the material they’re lying about; well informed people don’t fall for such things. But there’s a whole cottage industry in political influencer media that has built up around telling lies, like this one, or like the “Kavanaugh got dark money to pay off his loans” that only work on people who are eager to be angry and/or too lazy to check original sources for themselves.

So, have you dug through the evidence enough to rule out that a drug addict with a laptop full of images of himself with hookers might lie to his kids about why he doesn’t have money?
Click to expand...

Random people lie about things all the time even when there’s a strong case. So that’s just a nonsense argument. For every truth in the world, you can find at least one person lying and taking that further than the facts go. Example: it’s true a lot of evidence points towards a covid lab leak, but there’s no real evidence showing a Chinese government conspiracy to intentionally create/leak the virus. Example: it’s true our government has considered faking terrorist attacks to gain support for war, but there’s no real evidence showing 911 was a false flag. For any truth you can name, there’s someone lying to take it further. Pretending that’s not the case is just being dishonest.

Maybe he lied to his kids. But other people are backing up his claims, right? So we have his son claiming he’s involved, other witnesses claiming he’s involved, emails talking about how he will be holding x% for the “big guy”, etc, along with millions on his tax returns that are unaccounted for. What exactly would you want to see before you’d be willing to say “we need to see his bank records”?
 
#6,234
#6,234
Vol8188 said:
Random people lie about things all the time even when there’s a strong case. So that’s just a nonsense argument. For every truth in the world, you can find at least one person lying and taking that further than the facts go. Example: it’s true a lot of evidence points towards a covid lab leak, but there’s no real evidence showing a Chinese government conspiracy to intentionally create/leak the virus. Example: it’s true our government has considered faking terrorist attacks to gain support for war, but there’s no real evidence showing 911 was a false flag. For any truth you can name, there’s someone lying to take it further. Pretending that’s not the case is just being dishonest.

Maybe he lied to his kids. But other people are backing up his claims, right? So we have his son claiming he’s involved, other witnesses claiming he’s involved, emails talking about how he will be holding x% for the “big guy”, etc, along with millions on his tax returns that are unaccounted for. What exactly would you want to see before you’d be willing to say “we need to see his bank records”?
Click to expand...
If you cut what I said in half and declare that half nonsense, that doesn’t reflect on what I said. It reflects on you.

It’s a credibility issue. The people pushing this story are unabashed liars. They think their audience (you, plural) are too stupid and politically motivated to defeat even the most obvious lie. They’re frequently proven correct.

I’m not ruling out that Joe Biden was involved, but everything that has been cited seems also consistent with Hunter Biden duping people into believing he had influence, and the only people saying otherwise are the ones who also say Goldman lied about Archer’s testimony and the ones who didn’t bother to spend 3 minutes skimming the transcript before they bought that.
 
#6,235
#6,235
RockyTop85 said:
If you cut what I said in half and declare that half nonsense, that doesn’t reflect on what I said. It reflects on you.

It’s a credibility issue. The people pushing this story are unabashed liars. They think their audience (you, plural) are too stupid and politically motivated to defeat even the most obvious lie. They’re frequently proven correct.

I’m not ruling out that Joe Biden was involved, but everything that has been cited seems also consistent with Hunter Biden duping people into believing he had influence, and the only people saying otherwise are the ones who also say Goldman lied about Archer’s testimony and the ones who didn’t bother to spend 3 minutes skimming the transcript before they bought that.
Click to expand...
CH with CBS is fooling us?
she stated the transcript verbatim with the additional phrase that you conveniently left out on your screen print.
 
#6,236
#6,236
85SugarVol said:
Is the portion that Herridge quotes Archer in the NBC clip saying “that’s not quite fair…” in there?

It’s the illusion question (that does appear to be Goldman’s words) posed. “This was about the signal that there is access there” or something like that.
Click to expand...
I mean there’s a link to the transcript in my post. The words “quite fair” returned 0 results for me.

It’s not even a mischaracterization, much less a lie, to say “he testified that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access” when he was asked “was Hunter Biden selling the illusion of access” and said “yes.” That’s like looking at pictures of a composition notepad and saying you see three rings. You’re just refusing to admit you’re wrong at the expense of looking even more stupid at that point.
 

Attachments

  • 34E5A804-DFF1-427D-8824-1E80BBBE5156.jpeg
    34E5A804-DFF1-427D-8824-1E80BBBE5156.jpeg
    64.5 KB · Views: 5
  • 41C49D91-4C16-49B2-B625-5D1736C3D8A9.jpeg
    41C49D91-4C16-49B2-B625-5D1736C3D8A9.jpeg
    57.8 KB · Views: 5
  • B7167EB0-5E8C-499E-9AD6-520D7D595BEF.jpeg
    B7167EB0-5E8C-499E-9AD6-520D7D595BEF.jpeg
    70.5 KB · Views: 3
#6,238
#6,238
RockyTop85 said:
If you cut what I said in half and declare that half nonsense, that doesn’t reflect on what I said. It reflects on you.

It’s a credibility issue. The people pushing this story are unabashed liars. They think their audience (you, plural) are too stupid and politically motivated to defeat even the most obvious lie. They’re frequently proven correct.

I’m not ruling out that Joe Biden was involved, but everything that has been cited seems also consistent with Hunter Biden duping people into believing he had influence, and the only people saying otherwise are the ones who also say Goldman lied about Archer’s testimony and the ones who didn’t bother to spend 3 minutes skimming the transcript before they bought that.
Click to expand...

I didn’t cut anything in half. I responded to the entirety of what you said.

What you’re saying about who is pushing the story, that’s the problem. The mainstream intentionally ignores the story. I’d challenge you to find a single article from cnn, abc, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC about the fact that Hunter told his kids in a text message that is dad takes half his salary. That’s a problem. The refusal of the msm to cover real stories pushes people to fringe outlets.

You keep focusing on this one testimony. This one testimony proves that Biden was on conference calls with the board of burisma (over 20 total calls). That alone is concerning. If Hunter is selling access to Joe, at a minimum Joe seems to be an accomplice. We also have others who are saying “yes, Joe was involved”. How much evidence do you need before you’re willing to say we need to see joes bank records?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and VolinWayne
#6,239
#6,239
RockyTop85 said:
I mean there’s a link to the transcript in my post. The words “quite fair” returned 0 results for me.

It’s not even a mischaracterization, much less a lie, to say “he testified that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access” when he was asked “was Hunter Biden selling the illusion of access” and said “yes.” That’s like looking at pictures of a composition notepad and saying you see three rings. You’re just refusing to admit you’re wrong at the expense of looking even more stupid at that point.
Click to expand...
I was going off of your response and included snips to the Catherine Herridge sound bite on CBS.

This question (your snip) -
B41535FA-FDDA-466C-B1CB-352F3DE78C1D.jpeg
The one that concludes with “Is that fair?” The answer isn’t there.

I didn’t see the answer in your next 3 snips either.

Is Catherine Herridge wrong? She quoted him as saying “that’s not quite fair”.
 
#6,242
#6,242
85SugarVol said:
I was going off of your response and included snips to the Catherine Herridge sound bite on CBS.

This question (your snip) -
View attachment 567742
The one that concludes with “Is that fair?” The answer isn’t there.

I didn’t see the answer in your next 3 snips either.

Is Catherine Herridge wrong? She quoted him as saying “that’s not quite fair”.
Click to expand...
@RockyTop85

Catherine Herridge had it wrong.

She reported -
“That’s not quite fair”

Transcript reads -
“That’s almost fair”
 
#6,243
#6,243
85SugarVol said:
I was going off of your response and included snips to the Catherine Herridge sound bite on CBS.

This question (your snip) -
View attachment 567742
The one that concludes with “Is that fair?” The answer isn’t there.

I didn’t see the answer in your next 3 snips either.

Is Catherine Herridge wrong? She quoted him as saying “that’s not quite fair”.
Click to expand...
he conveniently left that out and calls CH a liar and those that believed her fools
 
#6,244
#6,244
85SugarVol said:
@RockyTop85

Catherine Herridge had it wrong.

She reported -
“That’s not quite fair”

Transcript reads -
“That’s almost fair”
Click to expand...
And he was asked to elaborate and basically describes the situation as they have normal father and son contact and Hunter presented that as him having access. Right?
 
#6,245
#6,245
Orangeburst said:
he conveniently left that out and calls CH a liar and those that believed her fools
Click to expand...
And he was asked to elaborate and basically describes the situation as they have normal father and son contact and Hunter presented that as him having access. Right?

Since you “looked for yourself” you can have a crack at this, too.
 
#6,246
#6,246
RockyTop85 said:
And he was asked to elaborate and basically describes the situation as they have normal father and son contact and Hunter presented that as him having access. Right?
Click to expand...
She quoted him as -
“This was about the signal, showing that there is access there”

Transcript reads -
“There are touch points and contact points that I can’t deny happened”

Those two aren’t close.
 
#6,247
#6,247
85SugarVol said:
She quoted him as -
“This was about the signal, showing that there is access there”

Transcript reads -
“There are touch points and contact points that I can’t deny happened… but nothing material was discussed”

Those two aren’t close.
Click to expand...
Added to your quote.

She’s implying that Goldman’s characterization of “selling the illusion of access” is misleading, the tweet that was posted here said it was a lie.

I’m asking you if Archer’s elaboration on “almost fair” (or anything else in his testimony, for that matter) contradicts that characterization of Archer’s testimony.
 
Last edited:
#6,249
#6,249
Vol8188 said:
I didn’t cut anything in half. I responded to the entirety of what you said.

What you’re saying about who is pushing the story, that’s the problem. The mainstream intentionally ignores the story. I’d challenge you to find a single article from cnn, abc, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC about the fact that Hunter told his kids in a text message that is dad takes half his salary. That’s a problem. The refusal of the msm to cover real stories pushes people to fringe outlets.

You keep focusing on this one testimony. This one testimony proves that Biden was on conference calls with the board of burisma (over 20 total calls). That alone is concerning. If Hunter is selling access to Joe, at a minimum Joe seems to be an accomplice. We also have others who are saying “yes, Joe was involved”. How much evidence do you need before you’re willing to say we need to see joes bank records?
Click to expand...
Yes you did. You responded to the part about people lying and ignored the conclusions that can be drawn from the poor quality of those lies and the fact that people who believe this story fall for them in large numbers (in spite of their poor quality).

The video being debated is a CBS report. And she was still apparently misleading or selectively edited, although I was originally loling about the tweet from Kalekoa the Great.
 
Last edited:
#6,250
#6,250
RockyTop85 said:
Added to your quote.

She’s implying that Goldman’s characterization of “selling the illusion of access” is misleading, the tweet that was posted here said it was a lie.

I’m asking you if Archer’s elaboration on “almost fair” (or anything else in his testimony, for that matter) contradicts that characterization of Archer’s testimony.
Click to expand...
This is my response to the initial post with the Herridge soundbite -

85SugarVol said:
Where is the transcript with those quotes?

If true, sounds like the Rep misrepresented what dude said.
Click to expand...

At this point I would say Herridge’s reporting on the matter could be called into question.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top