That proves he takes his son's calls and dines with him. Archer addressed these instances as giving the "illusion of access" (Goldman's phrase Archer agreed with).
Anything else?
Are you saying Archer perjured himself?
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 08-11-2023 at 02:16 PM.
Give it up, Chump. LOL @ "takes his sons phone calls and dines with him".
[Goldman] asked Archer, "Is it fair to say that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access to his father?"
Archer replied, "Yes."
Goldman followed up, "So, when you talk about selling the brand, it's not about selling access to his father. It's about selling the illusion of access to his father. Is that fair?"
Archer replied, "Is that fair? I mean, yeah, that is — I think that's — that's almost fair."
Goldman asked, "'Almost fair.' Why, 'almost fair?'"
"Because there are touch points and contact points that I can't deny that happened, but nothing of material was discussed," Archer said.
Are you saying your star witness perjured himself?
If yes, show your proof of his perjury.
Sorry, but dinners and phone calls are access. It wasn't an illusion. it was access. Doesn't matter what was or wasn't discussed.
Of course it does. You said it does.
So, I'll ask again:
What are you saying he knew about Hunter's business and what is your proof?
Give us the facts.
Hunter has "clients" Joe spoke to and dined with Hunters "clients". Are you actually trying to maintain that Joe didn't know they were Hunters "clients"?
Give us the facts.
According to you the big crime here is Joe's knowing people at dinner were Hunter's clients? Sure, I'll say Joe is a liar if he said he didn't know people at a dinner were not Hunter's clients. That's your new goalpost.
Now what?
Impeachment?
Now we wait and see what other facts come out. it's not over till it's over.According to you the big crime here is Joe's knowing people at dinner were Hunter's clients? Sure, I'll say Joe is a liar if he said he didn't know people at a dinner were not Hunter's clients. That's your new goalpost.
Now what?
Impeachment?
What else are you waiting for?
Are you saying your star witness Archer perjured himself?
Yes or no.
LOL @ Chump.
No he didn't perjure himself.
I think that's — that's almost fair."Just give it up. I'm not going to keep responding to your quibbling over semantics."Because there are touch points and contact points that I can't deny that happened"
I know facts don't really matter to you at this point because you conveniently left this out from Archer:
"nothing of material was discussed"
Did Archer perjure himself?
LOL
just like you conveniently left out "Because there are touch points and contact points that I can't deny that happened" in post #3555
I specifically said in post #3561 that Archer did not perjure himself.
Apparently facts don't matter to you. The discussion was about access to Joe. Even if they just discussed the weather that is access to Joe.
I posted the quote in the first place. How could I "leave it out" after I spoon fed it to you earlier?
So you accept nothing of material was discussed on these phone calls or dinners. What else is left?I specifically said in post #3561 that Archer did not perjure himself.
No, the entire discussion was what you say Joe knew about Hunter's business. You have proved that Joe knows Hunter has business clients.Apparently facts don't matter to you. The discussion was about access to Joe. Even if they just discussed the weather that is access to Joe.
Why are you dodging your own subject?
LOL @ Chump. This is ing stupid. Quit trying to twist my words. I was very clear. Your desperation for some ephemeral "victory" is ing hilarious.
It's not an "illusion" of access if there is real access. That's why Archer said it was "almost fair".
Access for what? Archer said nothing material was discussed and you believe him. Where are you moving the goalpost next?
So nothing happened CC?
Access, illusion of access, it's all semantics. What's the allegation here of Joe's wrongdoing? Archer himself acknowledged that nothing material was discussed. But even if Archer talked explicitly about Burisma's business and Joe engaged in such a conversation by asking questions about it... who cares unless you can show some quid pro quo.
Are we saying it's a crime for an elected official to have dinner with people? Is it illegal to have a conversation with elected officials? I've had plenty of conversations with elected officials about my business. Sometime that has even led to me donating to their campaign. Is the allegation that this somehow construes an elaborate bribery scheme? Why go through all the trouble... politicians have an EXPLICITLY LEGAL bribery scheme at their fingertips at any time they want: donations to their campaigns in exchange for entry to exclusive dinners.
Keep running cover for Pedo Weiner bro... Dude is a lost cause and even said so himself on the PBD podcast. He's still battling his demons....
oh my
a father calling his own son 20 times and yet as your star witness testified-
NEVER ONCE discussing business
sounds almost as bad as jared being gifted 2 billion bux by the murderer in saudi arabia
you must be really upset at that two billion dollar gift amirite?
I have never claimed that Joe Biden took bribes. I did say he bold faced lied when he repeatedly said he knew nothing about Hunters business dealings and that Hunter never took a dime from China. I simply stated that none of us have all the facts yet, and admittedly may never have all the facts even with the appointment of a special counsel. As far as I am concerned any claims of innocence or guilt are premature.
None of them will touch that
It’s all you need to know
Boohoo... you and Jared Kushner tbh.
Is there a sale at the crack house happening today that we were not warned about?
The ST crack head is out and about like he scored, bigly, just saying.
Hunter Biden has an account here?
You talk mad like all your eBoyfriends do.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
