Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Let me correct you several times, 3 exactly.  

First, he didn't testify under oath, so you're wrong about that. 

Second, he didn't contradict the fact that Shokin was investigating Burisma, so no it wouldn't be in the interests of Burisma to keep him on board in Ukraine.

Third, If keeping Shokin in place was positive in the interests of Burisma, why did the Oligarch who was the head of Burisma ask Joe Biden to remove him? 

The fact is that he didn't want Shokin in place.  Because some Democrat tells the Marxist Democrat sycophants that Devin Archer contradicted the fact that the Oligarch asked Joe Biden to have him fired, doesn't amount to anything. It is just blather and lies that our Resident communist sucks up like the other Pablum and propagana that his Marxist party tells him to believe.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

The resident forum communist said:

"you don't know if he was providing sworn testimony or not".

Well, yes I do know, as it was reported before he went in to provide his evidence of wrongdoing.  

Just because you're an ignoramus, don't get uppity.  

Here's the report:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/devon-archer-reportedly-will-not-be-under-oath-in-house-oversight-testimony/vi-AA1eAWPS

At the 30 second mark it is stated "He will NOT be under oath".  

Then the forum communist stated this:  

And yes he did contradict what Shokin did, expressly naming him as in Burisma's interests to maintain their influence over him

I have already provided evidence to the contrary, numerous times, just as I did above about the fact that Archer was not under oath.

All you ever do is make statements you can't back up.  

Go ahead and provide evidence that Archer contradicted anything about the FACT that Shokin was urged to be fired by Biden.  That has already been proven and all you have is your statement.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

 From Representative Dan Goldman who was in the room for the closed door testimony from Archer


Is that a joke you're trying to peddle there?  Dan Goldman has Zero credibility since he was one of the leaders of the Dems who brought impeachment of Biden.  

Dan Goldman also said and this was his actual statement:  They were talking about the weather!  

ROFLMAO!!!!   

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Well, there's a credible source. You can continue to be brainwashed by Fox News and OAN or whatever other right wing media Tucker is now on that you subscribe to.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

How much would you like to bet that these words that Donald Trump stated on that Day

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today", 

Will not be shown in the ad? 

Care to put up $10,000?   I'll put up mine, you put up yours.

Challenge for the resident Communist in California:  Show me in the following statement where he incited a riot, or his words could be thought of as an insurrection, or was a threat of violence.

"After this, we're going to walk down — and I'll be there with you — we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down — anyone you want, but I think right here — we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. And we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you'll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing, and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated — lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today.

There are his words.  I know that communist sheep like you and some others here have been brainwashed by the left because... well your mind is kind of feeble, but I'll ask again, show me where he incited a riot or suggested violence.

And let me know on that $10,000 challenge I'm making to you, if you're not too big an intellectual coward to accept it.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Please Name the ginned up charge.   

Did Devon Archer NOT say in his testimony that Joe Biden met with Devon Archer and Hunter Biden's business associates at Dinners, meetings, and that he was put on Conference calls with their business associates, and did Devon Archer NOT say that Hunter Biden sometimes would shout out "Hey guys, my Dad's on the phone"??

Did Devon Archer NOT say that Hunter Biden used his influence to further his business dealings.

Did Joe Biden and Hunter Biden NOT set up over 20 shell corporations and LLCs to funnel money from overseas business dealings?

Did numerous banks NOT flag Hunter Biden's activity over 150 times and report it as suspicious to the proper authorities?

Now I realize that you'll deflect and say "I don't need to prove anything" and "I don't need address or answer your posting" as you regularly do, however You are the one making the claim that these charges are "Ginned up", so it would be interesting to see if you can provide any evidence showing how they are "ginned up".  

Can you please address any of those facts above and show those facts to be wrong?

P.S. While you are at it, can you speak to Hillary's emails, as you seem to imply that there was nothing wrong there, or that she didn't destroy them, after they had already been subpoenaed by the gov't?

Can you please tell us all why Hilary Clinton was not charged with a crime of Obstruction of Justice for Deleting Emails that were subpoenaed by the Federal gov't, when she was provided a subpoena, destroyed the evidence, and then lied about it, as the NY Times, one of your favorite papers of record reported at the time?  

Do you have an answer at all or just more lip service?  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

All you have to do is read the FBI summary report and what Comey said right before the 2016 election to understand why she was never charged. And isn't it so ridiculous to think that she got special treatment when Comey's announcement right before the election undoubtedly affected Clinton negatively in some way?

The key points are:

1. Hillary never personally deleted anything. It's ludicrous to think that she did since of course it was handled by IT administrators for Platte River Networks.
2. The deleted emails were personal emails, not covered by the subpoena, and were all vetted by Clinton's lawyers, which is standard and hardly nefarious.
3. The request to delete the personal emails did occur before the subpoena was issued.
4. The IT administrators' oversight caused them to be deleted after the subpoena was issued.
5. The IT administrator (Platte River Networks) has said repeatedly they never treated the server belonging to the Clinton's differently than they did with any other client.

The Hillary email controversy has always been about ginning-up charges to damage her politically. And it's especially laughable that the GOP is still whining about her emails, given everything Trump has done.