By Mike Huckabee
August 4, 2023
|
|
It’s so refreshing to see some transparency out of Washington, DC.
The House Oversight and Accountability Committee has released the full transcript of Monday’s Devon Archer testimony. The whole thing. They didn’t cherry-pick, and there are no heavy black bars hiding this line or that line spoken by Hunter’s former business partner. And it shows that Democrat party shill Dan Goldman of New York was (surprise!) grossly misrepresenting what Archer said.
Oh, let’s just go ahead and say he was lying about it.
If you didn’t see the video of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Archer from yesterday’s newsletter, it’s a must-see. Here are a couple of sharp guys who both know “what’s what,” both clearly aware of --- and amused at --- the real reason Hunter was brought in to work those foreign deals. Hunter was “the brand,” the one who brought the connection and influence of the Vice President of the United States (who happened to be Obama’s “point man” for those counties) and the social connection to others in the power network. Clearly, that was what Hunter brought to the table, not any real expertise. Though schooled in law, he apparently didn’t practice it. I think we all know what the Vice President’s son was spending most of his time doing.
And then-VP Joe Biden was pleased as punch that Hunter was working with this group. He even told Archer that, early on, in a handwritten note at the bottom of a nice personal letter to him. Most accommodating.
The transcript does show Archer testifying that Hunter put his dad on speakerphone 20 times during gatherings of his business associates. But Archer did contradict the allegation by an FBI confidential human source (CHS) in the “1023” about Burisma wanting prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired. Archer said Burisma officials did not want Shokin fired because they thought they had him “under control.”
“This is the narrative spun to me,” Archer said, “that Shokin being fired was a --- was not good, because he was under control as relates to Mykola [Zlochevky, the one whose dog Hunter was dumber than].
The CHS had told the FBI that Zlochevsky bribed Joe and Hunter Biden $5 million each to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin, which is what the then-VP has bragged about doing. (Not the bribe part, the firing part.) Archer said he was unaware of the $5 million payments.
But the Biden “brand” was so important to Burisma, Archer said, it was his “honest opinion” that this was what kept the company in business for as long as it was.
He said the Biden “brand” (meaning Joe, not Hunter) attached to the company made people “intimidated to mess with them” from a legal standpoint. Looking at how the Bidens have been protected over the years by the DC permanent bureaucracy, we can see why people would feel that way. Get on their bad side and the powers that be might show that they have --- to borrow an expression from Sen. Chuck Schumer --- “six ways from Sunday” to get back at you. Look at what’s being done right now to Biden’s biggest adversary.
Perhaps Archer wasn’t entirely in the loop when it came to the desire for Shokin’s firing and had misunderstood, because he also told the committee about a particular conversation at the Four Seasons Hotel in Dubai in which Zlochevky told Hunter that Burisma needed “help from the United States government” to deal with the pressure they were under from Shokin. Archer then stepped away, he said, and Hunter was told to “call DC.”
Archer didn’t hear what was said during the call, but was told by Burisma executive Vadyn Pozharskyi that it was with Hunter’s dad. It was days later that VP Biden got in Air Force Two and personally flew to Ukraine, where he leveraged a threat to withhold $1 billion in aid to get Shokin fired. So it doesn’t really make sense for Archer to say his understanding was that they didn’t want him fired.
And in breaking news very early Friday morning, John Solomon reports that text messages provided to the FBI show the origins of Hunter’s controversial dealings with Chinese energy company CEFC, which was “hoping to seize on the name of one of America’s most famous political dynasties to provide cover for its ambitious plan to buy up energy assets within the United States.” It was all about the Biden name. This is a detailed, must-read story, and we’ll follow-up for the weekend with a deeper look.
Archer’s testimony received scant media attention Thursday, while the media did rise to new heights of political hackery in their coverage of President Trump’s arraignment in DC that afternoon. They gleefully talked about “co-conspirators” and some even cut away from Trump’s remarks to reporters, which ranged from the “filth and decay” he saw in DC as his motorcade drove through the streets to the “persecution of a political opponent” that this case clearly is.
Speaking of so-called co-conspirators, the AP ran a story quoting legal experts who say Jack Smith’s failure to name them in his indictment suggests he’s wanting “to expeditiously put the Republican front-runner on trial for seeking to overturn the 2020 election.” Never mind that his hurried timetable is a thinly-veiled attempt to interfere with the 2024 election. Being the AP, they don’t mention that aspect.
“More defendants mean more defense lawyers, and more legal motions and more delays, according to legal scholars and former prosecutors,” they report. “Such a large cast of defendants would make it extremely difficult for Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith to get Trump in front of a jury before the final stretch of the 2024 campaign, the experts said.” Does anyone else see the problem with that sentence?
It goes without saying that Trump is the big fish, not those other folks, and that Smith wants to time this trial to give maximum negative exposure before the election. They go on to quote former federal prosecutor Christopher Ott, who says, “This keeps it pretty streamlined. “All of these motions by defendants affect all of the defendants, including Trump. It would slow things down. If you don’t name and charge them, you don’t have that trouble.”
I doubt the AP talked with Alan Dershowitz, or wanted to; otherwise, the whole tone of their story would have been different. Dershowitz said Smith’s conduct has been so egregious that if he loses this case, he might find himself indicted, for conspiring to deprive President Trump of his constitutional right to free speech. “That’s how serious this is,” he said.
Smith also committed a lie by omission, according to Dershowitz, by “deliberately, willfully and maliciously” leaving out that part of Trump’s speech in which he told his audience to go “peacefully and patriotically” to the Capitol. “Jack [Smith] leaves that out,” he said, “and if you’re going to indict somebody for telling lies, don’t tell lies in the indictment. If you’re going to indict somebody for denying people their constitutional rights, don’t deny them their constitutional rights by indicting them for free speech. That’s how hypocritical this is.”
Dershowitz has also pointed out that Smith violated Trump’s right to counsel by naming his attorneys as unindicted co-conspirators, which “basically says they’re criminals for giving him advice on how to challenge the election.”
Of course, the faster the trial proceeds, the less time there will be for examining why Trump might’ve had good reason to doubt the election outcome. Trump attorney Alina Habba says this case “opens the door” to an examination of that. Even now, a new report from JUST THE NEWS cites five election irregularities from 2020 that Smith certainly wouldn’t want to have brought into his court. I say bring it all in.
There has never been a clearer case of election interference. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch has released a powerful statement.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/
And former presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard spares no words, either. She also points out the very different ways that Presidents Trump and Biden are being treated by a corrupted legal system. It’s that system that has to be saved.
Leave a Comment
Note: Fields marked with an * are required.