Tucker Releases Full Interview With Ex-Hunter Biden Business Partner, Devon Archer
Hunter’s "value": he brought the “Biden brand” to the table.
In this video, Tucker Carlson interviews Devon Archer, the ex-business partner of Hunter Biden. Archer discusses Hunter bringing the whole “Biden Brand” to the table, including business meeting call-ins from Joe Biden.
Don’t miss it!
More evidence of Joe Biden’s probable role in Hunter’s business dealings
When it comes to Joe Biden's knowledge of and possible complicity in Hunter Biden's dealings with foreign businesses and businesses connected to foreign governments during his father's vice presidency, the big questions are "Did Joe Biden know what was going on, did he participate in what was going on, did he profit from what was going on, and did he alter American foreign policy based upon that profit?"
The contents of Hunter Biden's laptop indicated that the answer to each question is yes. There's also emerging evidence that proves that the answer to each question is yes. It now turns out that one of Hunter's business associates had dozens of trips to the White House and Joe Biden's office and residence during the Obama presidency.
This time, the associate isn't Devon Archer or Tony Bobulinski, neither of whom claims to have met with Joe Biden very often. Instead, it's Eric Schwerin, who, along with Hunter Biden, founded the now defunct Rosemont Seneca Partners and also served as its managing partner. It was in that capacity that then-president Obama appointed (and, later reappointed) Schwerin to the Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad.
Image: Eric Schwerin. Facebook.
Just as a reminder, It was Rosemont Seneca Partners that was the vehicle through which Hunter conducted most of his deals with foreign corporations, especially those related to China's government. It's no coincidence that Wikipedia deleted Rosemont Seneca Partners. The partnership made it impossible to ignore the probable connection between Joe Biden and those same deals.
It's now emerged that Eric Schwerin, Hunter's business partner, made literally dozens of visits to the White House and to Joe Biden's residence during Obama's presidency, which is about 30% more than previously reported:
Hunter Biden's former friend and longtime business partner visited the Obama White House and then-Vice President Joe Biden's residence dozens of times between 2009 and 2016, likely to make him the next target of the House Oversight Committee's investigation into Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings.
[snip]
The number of Schwerin's White House visits could be much higher than 36 if any of his meetings fell under the White House voluntary disclosure policy exception of "purely personal guests," due to his handling of the Biden family's personal finances.
[snip]
One of Schwerin's visits - in November 2010 - was a sit-down with Joe Biden in the West Wing. Schwerin also visited Joe Biden's residence at least 15 times for various holiday receptions, including the Dec. 12 holiday reception in 2015 that came a couple of days after then-Vice President Biden's infamous trip to Ukraine, where he threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid if the country's leaders did not fire their top prosecutor.
The same article details all sorts of other visits Schwerin had to the White House and the vice president's office, including visits with Anne Marie Person, who started at Rosemont Seneca before joining Biden's staff.
Biden's spokespeople will say, of course, that Schwerin was at the White House because of the Commission, but I wonder if anyone believes that either Obama or Joe cared greatly about a Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad. They'll also say he was there because of Biden's personal finances, which is certainly a colorable argument.
But why would that see Schwerin meeting in 2016 "with Steve Ricchetti, who was Biden's chief of staff" on at least two occasions? Or attending receptions with other Rosemont Seneca partners? Or why he had at least three visits with staffers from Biden's office?
The net is closing. In answer to those four questions I posed above, the evidence is mounting that Joe Biden knew exactly what Hunter was doing, that he made sure that the foreign corporations and governments knew that he was on board, that he profited from these deals, and that he altered American policy in exchange for those profits.
The perfect speech for Joe Biden to plagiarize
In October 2020, during the heat of the presidential election, the mainstream media were defending and denying there was any wrongdoing by then–vice president Biden. USA Today published a column titled "Fact check: Biden leveraged $1B in aid to Ukraine to oust corrupt prosecutor, not to help his son."
The problem with this defense is that, while it claims there is no connection between Joe Biden and his son Hunter, that is a moot point where Joe Biden's guilt or innocence is concerned.
Congressman Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), representing Manhattan and Brooklyn, now claims that what Joe Biden did with his son's business partners was talk about the weather — all twenty times. This was reported in The New York Post.
Daniel Goldman was the lead prosecutor in the impeachment of President Trump. He even announced his candidacy for Congress during the impeachment. His claim that President Trump had committed an impeachable offense for looking into the corruption of Joe Biden's involvement in Ukraine is ironic and hypocritical — especially since there is a well known video of Joe Biden bragging that he got a foreign official to fire a prosecutor by leveraging one billion in taxpayer dollars.
Jonathan Turley calls Dan Goldman's account of Devon Archers testimony describing the relationship among Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden's business dealings an insult to the intelligence of voters. Goldman's description of what Joe Biden did, getting the prosecutor in Ukraine fired, is convoluted. His excuse for Joe Biden is not legitimate.
Goldman's claim that there is no evidence that links Joe Biden to Hunter's business dealings is an incomplete statement. I will complete the statement for Mr. Goldman — "that I, Dan Goldman, am capable of comprehending." Perhaps he is that incompetent as an attorney. Why should we question that?
He also points a finger at Donald Trump, claiming that President Trump used the government for his own personal gain. Jonathan Turley disputes all of Goldman's points in an interview on Fox News. He correctly states that what we are looking at, where President Biden and his family are concerned, is one of the most significant corruption scandals in our nation's history.
If Joe Biden, whether as the vice president or simply a United States citizen, had used his own billion dollars to bribe the foreign official, it would be a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The reason or motive is not required when violating of the FCPA. For him to have used federal dollars adds to the charges.
Here is the definition of the FCPA, as explained in its first paragraph:
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq. ("FCPA"), was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. Specifically, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA prohibit the willful use of the mails or any means of instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of any offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of money or anything of value to any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to a foreign official to influence the foreign official in his or her official capacity, induce the foreign official to do or omit to do an act in violation of his or her lawful duty, or to secure any improper advantage in order to assist in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.
The fact is, President Trump had the right, even an obligation, to look into any corruption in Ukraine, even if it was by Joe Biden, who admitted to it in a video. He even bragged about it, and indirectly may have even implicated President Obama. He clearly says that President Obama would withhold "the billion dollars." President Trump, before he was going to authorize any more money to Ukraine, had reason to look into whether or not the money was going to be used for its intended purpose and not misappropriated.
As far as what we keep hearing, that there is no evidence that Biden's shakedown of the Ukraine president to fire the prosecutor, as he himself bragged about doing, is related in any way to Hunter Biden, that makes no difference. Bribing the official is by itself a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Using federal funds makes it even more egregious. Why Biden did it makes no difference.
To give a legal analogy, saying they need a reason or motive, even if it was to get a corrupt prosecutor fired, which is the other defense pundits offer for Biden, is equivalent to saying, "The suspect committed murder, but we don't know the motive, so we aren't going to charge him with a crime."
I can understand that a prosecutor would want to tie the act to Hunter Biden, but it's not necessary to do that to indict President Biden. While they keep saying you can't indict a sitting president, these same people impeached a citizen who was a former president. They impeached a president for investigating what we now see is a crime committed by a former vice president and U.S. senator. We also see what the Biden Justice Department is doing to his leading political opponent.
We have always claimed the United States is a country of laws, but we are becoming a country of politicians who make up their own rules and laws. What do we call that kind of country? We need to make sure our elected officials remember that we are a republic and remind them of what that means.
President Biden, you've been accused of stealing speeches, plagiarizing, and lying. Let's hear you steal this from Richard Nixon: "The people need to know if their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook."
Come on, man!
David Ennocenti is a retired accountant and graduate of the State University of N.Y. at Buffalo, School of Management with a degree in accounting and finance. He passed the CPA Examination in 1983. His writing has appeared in The American Thinker, USA Today, The New York Times, and several other publications. His screenplay, Sniper Queen, was an official selection of The Artemis Women in Action Films Festival. He is a past winner of the Writer's Digest Annual Competition. His essay "1984 Arrived: Now What? How Progressive Policies Decimated a Once Vibrant Community" and his political TV pilot screenplay "Blood on the Hill" are available on Amazon.
Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.
No comments:
Post a Comment