FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

He seems more than willing to remain inside the fictional bubble that Trump and his compliant media handmaids have created to convince people like him that the Cheeto Benito is still "a very stable genius."

A "fictional bubble" you say?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

A "fictional bubble" you say?

LOL!

But I've edited my post to make clear that the part you highlighted was a quote from Finn.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Pro tip: The NY Post is not a newspaper. It's a wingnut scandal sheet for those who also trust the National Enquirer to bring them the news.

Pro-tip: If you're going to post links to articles from Media Matters, as you did earlier in this thread, as if Media Matters is a credible news source, you should also assume that your critiques of other news outlets will not be taken seriously, laughed at, deemed hypocritical, or all of the above.

Originally Posted by finnbow

I predicted that we would have the last laugh at your expense when it became clear that the Comer/Jordan follies again struck out. I just didn't know it would happen so quickly.

Comer knew before his latest hearing that it would be a bust. He didn't even show up for it, but then went on Hannity that night to spew the same lies you're spewing as if they were just revealed in the hearing when, in fact, the hearing clearly contradicted his (and your) breathless assertions.

What "breathless assertions" of mine did the hearing contradict? Did you even read the transcript of Archer's testimony? Or are you getting your "interpretation" of Archer's testimony from Media Matters? (insert eye roll here).

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Pro-tip: If you're going to post links to articles from Media Matters, as you did earlier in this thread, as if Media Matters is a credible news source, you should also assume that your critiques of other news outlets will not be taken seriously, laughed at, deemed hypocritical, or all of the above.

What "breathless assertions" of mine did the hearing contradict? Did you even read the transcript of Archer's testimony? Or are you getting your "interpretation" of Archer's testimony from Media Matters? (insert eye roll here).

Last time I checked Media Matters didn't settle the largest media defamation lawsuit in history like the owner of the NYPost recently did (with another large defamation payout likely in store). The NYPost is Fox News for those who can (barely) read.

Also, the links I posted discrediting Comer's nonsense were from the Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post, not some wingnut scandal sheet like the NYPost (something you characterized as "evidence."). LOL.

Another pro tip: You would not be laughingly discredited so frequently if you got your news from the WashPost instead of the NYPost.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Last time I checked Media Matters didn't settle the largest media defamation lawsuit in history like the owner of the NYPost recently did (with another large defamation payout likely in store). The NYPost is Fox News for those who can (barely) read.

Also, the links I posted discrediting Comer's nonsense were from the Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post, not some wingnut scandal sheet like the NYPost (something you characterized as "evidence."). LOL.

Another pro tip: You would not be laughingly discredited so frequently if you got your news from the WashPost instead of the NYPost.

Ahhh that leftist rag the Washington Post (eyeroll). It's a good thing for folks like you that this thread was created. The old "my source is credible and yours is not" argument. That he will go to great lengths to find a source who's opinion agrees with his narrative. At least he's consistent. Consistently the forum laughingstock that is.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Ahhh that leftist rag the Washington Post (eyeroll). It's a good thing for folks like you that this thread was created. The old "my source is credible and yours is not" argument. That he will go to great lengths to find a source who's opinion agrees with his narrative. At least he's consistent. Consistently the forum laughingstock that is.

A while back a MAGAt on AK was arguing with the Mod that his quotes from Fox News should be respected since they are the most watched cable News channel. They have a viewership of 1.1 Million in a country of 300+ Million. (double eye roll).

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Last time I checked Media Matters didn't settle the largest media defamation lawsuit in history like the owner of the NYPost recently did (with another large defamation payout likely in store). The NYPost is Fox News for those who can (barely) read.

Also, the links I posted discrediting Comer's nonsense were from the Pulitzer Prize winning Washington Post, not some wingnut scandal sheet like the NYPost (something you characterized as "evidence."). LOL.

Another pro tip: You would not be laughingly discredited so frequently if you got your news from the WashPost instead of the NYPost.

Finn, apparently getting your facts straight is about as important to you as it is to Media Matters. I quote from the Washington Post and the NY Times. In fact, one of your fellow travelers on this forums recently commented "So what?" when I posted from a NY Times poll.

Please try to at least get something right if you're going to comment about it. LOL.

As far as Bump's article in WaPo, Bump is an absolute tool. And if you're going to take Bump's characterization of Archer's testimony at face value, I can only conclude that you didn't actually read the transcipt of the testimony. You're simply parrotting what a spinmeister like Bump is telling you.

Let me help you a bit. Here's a link to the transcript. You might want to have a look at it: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-conte...Transcript.pdf

Here's just one of the many interesting comments Archer made. This one is interesting because it came from a part of Archer's testimony where Goldman was questioning him. In context, Archer kept making references to "the brand". At one point, Archer was asked to confirm who or what exactly was he talking about when he referred to "the brand". It wasn't just the Biden family name. Specifically, Archer was referring to Joe Biden. You can see this on page 30 of the transcipt of you're remotely interested.

Any, back to Goldman and Archer's exchange, this on page 105:

A No. My only thought is that I think Burisma would have gone out of
25 business if it didn't have the brand attached to it. That's my, like, only honest opinion.

1 But I have no basis for any -- never heard any conversations --
2 Mr. Goldman. But that's different than Joe Biden's action.
3 Mr. Archer. Right.
4 Mr. Goldman. You're just talking about that Hunter was on the board.
5 Mr. Archer. Right. And I think that's why --
6 Mr. Goldman. And so --
7 Mr. Archer. -- it was able to survive for as long as it did.
8 Mr. Goldman. By -- because of additional capital or --
9 Mr. Archer. Just because of the brand.
10 Mr. Goldman. Well, I don't understand. How does that have an impact?
11 Mr. Archer. Well, the capabilities to navigate D.C. that they were able to, you
12 know, basically be in the news cycle. And I think that preserved them from a, you know,
13 from a longevity standpoint. That's like my honest -- that's like really what I -- that's like
14 how I think holistically.
15 Mr. Goldman. But how would that work?
16 Mr. Archer. Because people would be intimidated to mess with them.
17 Mr. Goldman. In what way?
18 Mr. Archer. Legally.

So, "the brand's" association from Burisma acted as a legal shield. Intimidation. Were they intimidated by Hunter? No. They were intimidated by "the brand": Joe Biden.

Now, here's why actually reading the transcript, rather than taking a fool like Bump at face value, might be important. Bump, in the article you linked to, said:

Archer agreed that the fact that “Shokin did not pursue corruption investigations against Burisma’s owner, effectively shielding the owner from prosecution,” as Goldman articulated it, meant that Shokin’s ouster put Burisma and Zlochevsky at more risk, not less.

The problem, Finn, is that's not really what Archer said. This starting on page 106:

Mr. Archer. That was like -- that was a narrative that was -- that was told to me
3 by various of the D.C. team, that the firing of Shokin was bad for Burisma because he was
4 under control.
5 Mr. Goldman. What did you understand "under control" to mean?
6 Mr. Archer. Meaning that they were going to maybe give a slap on the wrist as
7 opposed to --
8 Mr. Goldman. Okay.
9 Mr. Archer. -- you know, seize all his assets.
10 Mr. Goldman. Because there was a lot of characterizations by the Republicans in
11 the first part about a Ukrainian investigation.
12 Mr. Archer. Uh-huh.
13 Mr. Goldman. But you're not actually aware of any investigation by the
14 prosecutor general in Ukraine into Burisma which is different from the
15 British investigation.
Mr. Archer. Right. The British investigation I was aware of. I think in the
17 early stages, like the visa and the British, I was made aware of. And then it kind of
18 my -- I had other responsibilities and I was less informed as we moved forward and Blue
19 Star kind of was more involved.
20 Mr. Goldman. Was taken over on that --
21 Mr. Archer. Yeah.
22 Mr. Goldman. -- on that angle of things.
23 Mr. Archer. I was, like, an FYI at first, and then I became less FYI as time
24 progressed.
25 Mr. Goldman. So was it -- Shokin was ultimately removed from office.


107
1 Mr. Archer. Right.
2 Mr. Goldman. Was that a bad thing for -- and the Burisma leaders felt like that
3 would be bad for them?
4 Mr. Archer. That was what I was told.
5 Mr. Goldman. Okay. Maybe go to the --
6 Mr. Schwartz. Not by the Burisma leaders.
7 Mr. Archer. Exactly. Not by the Burisma leaders. I was told by the D.C. team.

The key here, and the part that Bump is mischaracterizing - likely on purpose - is that Archer didn't, as Bump claims: agree that the fact that “Shokin did not pursue corruption investigations against Burisma’s owner, effectively shielding the owner from prosecution." We was simply restating what he heard from someone else.

So, Goldman states that "Shokin did not pursue corruption investigations against Burisma’s owner, effectively shielding the owner from prosecution", and Bump wants that to be the story. So, Bump finds a way to say that Archer confimed it, which is a lie, when all Archer did was say that this wasn't what he heard from Burisma leadereship, it was what the "D.C. team" told him.

Now, if you're really up for a dose of reality, do a Google search on Archer's testimony and see what comes up. Many of the articles lead with a statement like "Hunter Biden sold the "illusion of access to his father". What's fascinating to me is that Archer never used those words. That phrase came from a question that Goldman asked Archer. Have a look at page 116 and you can confirm this:

Q So when you talk about selling the brand --
21 A Uh-huh.
22 Q -- it's not about selling access to his father. It's about selling the illusion of
23 access to his father. Is that fair?
24 A Is that fair? IA Because there -- there is -- there are touch points and contact points that I 2 can't deny that happened, but nothing of material was discussed. But I can't go on
3 record saying that there was -- there was communications. mean, yeah, that is -- I think that's -- that's almost fair.

Throughout the transcript, you can also confirm that Archer never said that Hunter never spoke to Joe Biden about the business. What Archer says is that he never heard Hunter speak to Joe about it. That doesn't mean that such conversations never happened.

The Pultizer Prize winning Washington Post apparently doesn't care that they employee a lying sack of crap like Bump.
25 Q Almost fair. Why almost fair?

[Chicks]

Whell, you have some sort of psychological issue. OCD, perhaps? Get yourself diagnosed, please, for your own good.

[Chicks]

Republicans’ big Biden bombshell: 'He doesn’t have much expertise in the world of business'
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/repub...143919739.html

Republicans keep salivating over so-called witnesses who might link President Biden with corruption involving his troubled son Hunter. Well, they finally found a whopper.

“He doesn’t have much expertise in the world of business,” Devon Archer, former business partner of Hunter Biden, admitted in white-hot testimony before Congress this week.

“Joe Biden, that is?” a staff lawyer asked.

“Right,” Archer confirmed.

It’s not exactly the graft Republicans were hoping for, but hey, it’s bad enough. Former President Donald Trump, who could be Biden’s opponent in the 2024 campaign, claims to be an ace businessman, with six bankruptcies to prove it. For those who prefer criminality in a candidate, like half the Republican Party, Trump’s cornering that market, too.

ROFL.

[Rajoo]

As a Businessman, Trump Was the Biggest Loser of All

Last October, the New York Times published a monumental exposé of how Donald Trump and other members of the Trump family engaged in sham financial schemes during the nineteen-nineties, including what the newspaper described as “instances of outright fraud,” to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes on the real-estate fortune that Fred Trump passed on to his children. Last month, the three reporters who wrote the story—David Barstow, Susanne Craig, and Russ Buettner—were awarded the Pulitzer Prize in explanatory reporting.

On Tuesday evening, the Times dropped another story that delved into the President’s financial past. Written by Buettner and Craig, and based upon “printouts from Mr. Trump’s official Internal Revenue Service transcripts” that the reporters obtained, the story further undermined the assiduously promoted fiction that Trump, before he became a reality-television star and entered politics, was a highly successful self-made businessman. He was anything but.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-c...t-loser-of-all