IRS Whistleblowers and Devon Archer - House Oversight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hunter Biden was selling access to his dad.
His dad gave the access--which is proven by these phone calls. And, he knew that his son was being paid for that.
That is enough.

The prosecutor may have deserved to be fired--but the timing of it and payments to Hunter leave a lot of questions unanswered.

P.s. If Hunter was only selling 'illusion of access" as Goldman alleges, it does not matter. His dad assisted him with this by taking multiple phone calls with his business associates. He knew Hunter was being paid by these people. That is enough.

That’s 100% wrong. Politicians take phone calls and meetings with everyone, it’s literally most of what they do. Biden is famous for calling and taking phone calls with everybody and their mother. If Mitch McConnell called him during a meeting, he would take the call and talk to everyone in the room. It doesn’t mean he will do anything inappropriate for any of them.

According to your SCOTUS in the McDonnell case, there is no crime without a tangible quid pro quo. McDonnell took bribes and made phone calls and set up meetings but the state did not do what the briber requested, so SCOTUS overturned the conviction. Biden didn’t do any of that. Even Ron Johnson admitted in the Senate report that there is no evidence that Joe personally received anything from Burisma and no evidence that he did anything inappropriate for Burisma. You have nothing. It’s a dead horse.

Quid pro quo: millions and millions for his family members-

In exchange for …. What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hunter Biden was selling access to his dad.
His dad gave the access--which is proven by these phone calls. And, he knew that his son was being paid for that.
That is enough.

The prosecutor may have deserved to be fired--but the timing of it and payments to Hunter leave a lot of questions unanswered.

P.s. If Hunter was only selling 'illusion of access" as Goldman alleges, it does not matter. His dad assisted him with this by taking multiple phone calls with his business associates. He knew Hunter was being paid by these people. That is enough.

That’s 100% wrong. Politicians take phone calls and meetings with everyone, it’s literally most of what they do. Biden is famous for calling and taking phone calls with everybody and their mother. If Mitch McConnell called him during a meeting, he would take the call and talk to everyone in the room. It doesn’t mean he will do anything inappropriate for any of them.

According to your SCOTUS in the McDonnell case, there is no crime without a tangible quid pro quo. McDonnell took bribes and made phone calls and set up meetings but the state did not do what the briber requested, so SCOTUS overturned the conviction. Biden didn’t do any of that. Even Ron Johnson admitted in the Senate report that there is no evidence that Joe personally received anything from Burisma and no evidence that he did anything inappropriate for Burisma. You have nothing. It’s a dead horse.

Quid pro quo: millions and millions for his family members-

So...what did China get in return? As best I can tell, Biden has kept the heat on China and is imposing even more on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hunter Biden was selling access to his dad.
His dad gave the access--which is proven by these phone calls. And, he knew that his son was being paid for that.
That is enough.

The prosecutor may have deserved to be fired--but the timing of it and payments to Hunter leave a lot of questions unanswered.

P.s. If Hunter was only selling 'illusion of access" as Goldman alleges, it does not matter. His dad assisted him with this by taking multiple phone calls with his business associates. He knew Hunter was being paid by these people. That is enough.

That’s 100% wrong. Politicians take phone calls and meetings with everyone, it’s literally most of what they do. Biden is famous for calling and taking phone calls with everybody and their mother. If Mitch McConnell called him during a meeting, he would take the call and talk to everyone in the room. It doesn’t mean he will do anything inappropriate for any of them.

According to your SCOTUS in the McDonnell case, there is no crime without a tangible quid pro quo. McDonnell took bribes and made phone calls and set up meetings but the state did not do what the briber requested, so SCOTUS overturned the conviction. Biden didn’t do any of that. Even Ron Johnson admitted in the Senate report that there is no evidence that Joe personally received anything from Burisma and no evidence that he did anything inappropriate for Burisma. You have nothing. It’s a dead horse.

Quid pro quo: millions and millions for his family members-

So...what did China get in return? As best I can tell, Biden has kept the heat on China and is imposing even more on them.

Yes. All those solar panels and allowing a spy balloon to cross continental United States gathering information. Really kept the heat up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hunter Biden was selling access to his dad.
His dad gave the access--which is proven by these phone calls. And, he knew that his son was being paid for that.
That is enough.

The prosecutor may have deserved to be fired--but the timing of it and payments to Hunter leave a lot of questions unanswered.

P.s. If Hunter was only selling 'illusion of access" as Goldman alleges, it does not matter. His dad assisted him with this by taking multiple phone calls with his business associates. He knew Hunter was being paid by these people. That is enough.

That’s 100% wrong. Politicians take phone calls and meetings with everyone, it’s literally most of what they do. Biden is famous for calling and taking phone calls with everybody and their mother. If Mitch McConnell called him during a meeting, he would take the call and talk to everyone in the room. It doesn’t mean he will do anything inappropriate for any of them.

According to your SCOTUS in the McDonnell case, there is no crime without a tangible quid pro quo. McDonnell took bribes and made phone calls and set up meetings but the state did not do what the briber requested, so SCOTUS overturned the conviction. Biden didn’t do any of that. Even Ron Johnson admitted in the Senate report that there is no evidence that Joe personally received anything from Burisma and no evidence that he did anything inappropriate for Burisma. You have nothing. It’s a dead horse.

Quid pro quo: millions and millions for his family members-

And yet Joe's tax returns never show thar kind of money. We know that because he doesnt hide them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hunter Biden was selling access to his dad.
His dad gave the access--which is proven by these phone calls. And, he knew that his son was being paid for that.
That is enough.

The prosecutor may have deserved to be fired--but the timing of it and payments to Hunter leave a lot of questions unanswered.

P.s. If Hunter was only selling 'illusion of access" as Goldman alleges, it does not matter. His dad assisted him with this by taking multiple phone calls with his business associates. He knew Hunter was being paid by these people. That is enough.

That’s 100% wrong. Politicians take phone calls and meetings with everyone, it’s literally most of what they do. Biden is famous for calling and taking phone calls with everybody and their mother. If Mitch McConnell called him during a meeting, he would take the call and talk to everyone in the room. It doesn’t mean he will do anything inappropriate for any of them.

According to your SCOTUS in the McDonnell case, there is no crime without a tangible quid pro quo. McDonnell took bribes and made phone calls and set up meetings but the state did not do what the briber requested, so SCOTUS overturned the conviction. Biden didn’t do any of that. Even Ron Johnson admitted in the Senate report that there is no evidence that Joe personally received anything from Burisma and no evidence that he did anything inappropriate for Burisma. You have nothing. It’s a dead horse.

Quid pro quo: millions and millions for his family members-

And yet Joe's tax returns never show thar kind of money. We know that because he doesnt hide them.

Didn't Hunter share a bank account with his dad? You don't find it a little odd that many in the Biden family have received large amounts of money for no work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hunter Biden was selling access to his dad.
His dad gave the access--which is proven by these phone calls. And, he knew that his son was being paid for that.
That is enough.

The prosecutor may have deserved to be fired--but the timing of it and payments to Hunter leave a lot of questions unanswered.

P.s. If Hunter was only selling 'illusion of access" as Goldman alleges, it does not matter. His dad assisted him with this by taking multiple phone calls with his business associates. He knew Hunter was being paid by these people. That is enough.

That’s 100% wrong. Politicians take phone calls and meetings with everyone, it’s literally most of what they do. Biden is famous for calling and taking phone calls with everybody and their mother. If Mitch McConnell called him during a meeting, he would take the call and talk to everyone in the room. It doesn’t mean he will do anything inappropriate for any of them.

According to your SCOTUS in the McDonnell case, there is no crime without a tangible quid pro quo. McDonnell took bribes and made phone calls and set up meetings but the state did not do what the briber requested, so SCOTUS overturned the conviction. Biden didn’t do any of that. Even Ron Johnson admitted in the Senate report that there is no evidence that Joe personally received anything from Burisma and no evidence that he did anything inappropriate for Burisma. You have nothing. It’s a dead horse.

Quid pro quo: millions and millions for his family members-

And yet Joe's tax returns never show thar kind of money. We know that because he doesnt hide them.

Didn't Hunter share a bank account with his dad? You don't find it a little odd that many in the Biden family have received large amounts of money for no work?

Np- I have a trust. So, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hunter Biden was selling access to his dad.
His dad gave the access--which is proven by these phone calls. And, he knew that his son was being paid for that.
That is enough.

The prosecutor may have deserved to be fired--but the timing of it and payments to Hunter leave a lot of questions unanswered.

P.s. If Hunter was only selling 'illusion of access" as Goldman alleges, it does not matter. His dad assisted him with this by taking multiple phone calls with his business associates. He knew Hunter was being paid by these people. That is enough.

That’s 100% wrong. Politicians take phone calls and meetings with everyone, it’s literally most of what they do. Biden is famous for calling and taking phone calls with everybody and their mother. If Mitch McConnell called him during a meeting, he would take the call and talk to everyone in the room. It doesn’t mean he will do anything inappropriate for any of them.

According to your SCOTUS in the McDonnell case, there is no crime without a tangible quid pro quo. McDonnell took bribes and made phone calls and set up meetings but the state did not do what the briber requested, so SCOTUS overturned the conviction. Biden didn’t do any of that. Even Ron Johnson admitted in the Senate report that there is no evidence that Joe personally received anything from Burisma and no evidence that he did anything inappropriate for Burisma. You have nothing. It’s a dead horse.

Quid pro quo: millions and millions for his family members-

And yet Joe's tax returns never show thar kind of money. We know that because he doesnt hide them.

Didn't Hunter share a bank account with his dad? You don't find it a little odd that many in the Biden family have received large amounts of money for no work?

No he didn’t. Yet another thing you’ve made up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Biden filed and paid late. So why then do people keep saying he didn't pay?

His friend paid for him and he was given "heads up" on some of the investigation.

Go on vacation like all the congressional maga did. This is over. All the RWJNs in congress have given up on this.

Speaking of vacation, Victor Shokin wants to come to the US and testify against Biden but guess who wont give him a visa?

Because he is a disgraced criminal.

What exactly has he been convicted of? He has an immaculate reputation in Ukraine, graduated from a prominent law school in Kharkiv, life long prosecutor who started at the very bottom and built his career to the top prosecutor of the country. He became a criminal when he crosse the passes with Bidens. Read his book.

[Anonymous]

I am not giving corrupted people a penny in book royalties. If you think he is honest, then you are believing that over the GOP Senate and the global community.

[Anonymous]

Schwerin (the "money man") needs to be deposed next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Biden filed and paid late. So why then do people keep saying he didn't pay?

His friend paid for him and he was given "heads up" on some of the investigation.

Go on vacation like all the congressional maga did. This is over. All the RWJNs in congress have given up on this.

Speaking of vacation, Victor Shokin wants to come to the US and testify against Biden but guess who wont give him a visa?

Because he is a disgraced criminal.

What exactly has he been convicted of? He has an immaculate reputation in Ukraine, graduated from a prominent law school in Kharkiv, life long prosecutor who started at the very bottom and built his career to the top prosecutor of the country. He became a criminal when he crosse the passes with Bidens. Read his book.

LMAO! Revisionist fiction. He was corrupt and was NOT investigating the Bidens. That's been proven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Biden filed and paid late. So why then do people keep saying he didn't pay?

His friend paid for him and he was given "heads up" on some of the investigation.

Go on vacation like all the congressional maga did. This is over. All the RWJNs in congress have given up on this.

Speaking of vacation, Victor Shokin wants to come to the US and testify against Biden but guess who wont give him a visa?

Because he is a disgraced criminal.

What exactly has he been convicted of? He has an immaculate reputation in Ukraine, graduated from a prominent law school in Kharkiv, life long prosecutor who started at the very bottom and built his career to the top prosecutor of the country. He became a criminal when he crosse the passes with Bidens. Read his book.

LMAO! Revisionist fiction. He was corrupt and was NOT investigating the Bidens. That's been proven.

DP
No, it hasn't.
And, in fact, there is evidence that he WAS investigating Burisma.

[Anonymous]

The PP keeps citing "blue check" idiots who are continuing to misconstrue the facts in order to confuse and rile the idiots.

The bottom line. Shokin was and is corrupt. Shokin was not investigating Burisma, which the international community wanted. He was removed for his lack of action.

Biden, serving in his role as Vice President, was acting at the behest of the President, the US Senate (including republicans) and international NGOs who wanted Shoking removed.

Period.

Archers testimony confirms that he had NO knowledge of any misdeed by the then Vice President.

That should be the end of this, but yet, we have people who live on clicks who keep propping up "oh, THIS is the guy who needs to testify and it will bring the whole thing down" and yet, we have been through several of these and none of them have the goods. Why?

Because there are no goods to have.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

It wasn't Joe Biden that fired Shokin. A vice president of one country doesn't have that ability. If Shokin hadn't been corrupt, he wouldn't have been fired. He wouldn't have drawn the ire of the World Bank, IMF and other lenders to Ukraine.