Last time, Tucker Carlson aired part 1 of his interview with Devon Archer, and today he dropped part 2:
Ep. 13 Part 2. Devon Archer pic.twitter.com/R1sxSuPrKq
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) August 4, 2023
(If the video doesn't show, click on the Tweet.)
If we feel like getting persnickety, we would get into how last time it said it was Episode 12, part 1, when it should have said it was the ‘Devon Archer interview, part 1’ or something like that. But we will let it go.
Also, is there a part 3? Judging by the way the episode ended, we guess not, but one can’t be sure.
In terms of content, they dig much deeper into the Bidens’ relationship with Burisma. The suspicion every honest person has to have is that President Biden committed bribery—one of the few crimes specifically named in the clause governing the impeachment of Presidents and Vice Presidents in the Constitution. This is what 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2) says about bribery:
Whoever... (2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
It goes on to state that doing so is a crime with various punishments. But let's break that down further.
First, the person has to be a public official. Joe Biden was Vice President at the time, so that easily fits the bill.
Second, there has to be a benefit (‘anything of value’) to himself or any other person or entity. Thus, if Joe Biden explicitly said ‘give my son money and I will do X’ we are talking about federal bribery. So the benefits to Hunter Biden is enough.
Third, it requires that it be basically a bargain, or an attempted bargain. This does require Joe Biden to understand the bargain. For instance, imagine that someone in Burisma said to Hunter Biden ‘I’ll give you a raise if your father gets the Ukrainian government to fire this prosecutor’ but Hunter Biden never tells his dad about it, and his dad just happens to get that prosecutor fired, that isn’t bribery by Joe Biden. There might be legal jeopardy for Hunter, but not for Joe.
Finally, the bargain has to be for one of the things in subsections (A), (B) or (C). The most obvious fit is (A). If you want to read more about what constitutes an ‘official act,’ as required by that subsection, we would direct you to McDonnell v. US, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016). That is the case where federal prosecutor Jack Smith went after Bob McDonnell, then Virginia governor (R) and possible future presidential candidate, for bribery. Smith, who is currently going after Trump, was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court, but not until after he wrecked McDonnell’s career. In that case, the Court clarified what was meant by an ‘official act.’ So, if you want to get into it, that might be a good case to examine, but we will say that giving or withholding official United States government money to Ukraine easily counts as an official act.
Finally, it doesn’t require Joe Biden to have been solely motivated by the bribe. We constantly hear the Democrats claim that the prosecutor was corrupt and that is why Joe Biden did got him fired. But the statute doesn’t require the bargain to be his sole motivation: It only requires it to ‘influence’ his decision, and not to even be the deciding factor.
Can we prove Biden committed bribery under this statute? No, at least not yet. But at this point there might be enough evidence to secure an indictment and there’s definitely enough evidence to justify further investigation. Honest people are likely to say ‘we know this is probably what happened, but we can’t prove it.’ And proof is what is needed for a conviction either in a regular criminal court, or in an impeachment trial in the Senate.
And really, if Joe Biden really had no untoward motive why didn’t he just recuse himself? Why didn’t he say to then-President Obama, ‘I think this prosecutor has to go because he is corrupt, but he is investigating my son’s company, so can we hand this off to someone else who doesn’t have this issue?’ Then none of this would be happening.
As for the media story of Carlson creating his own Twitter/X show, as we noted last time, the ratings story remains interesting:
Episode 1: 120.8 million views.
Episode 2: 61.2 million views.
Episode 3: 105.2 million views.
Episode 4: 33.1 million views.
Episode 5: 18.1 million views.
Episode 6: 33 million views.
Episode 7: 16.8 million views.
Episode 8: 10.3 million views
Episode 9: 96.3 million views
Episode 10: 12 million views
Episode 11: 7 million views
Episode 12: 26.5 million views
In any case, this current episode has over 1.2 million views as of this writing. That will almost certainly go up by a lot, just like the last episode.
The most sought after interview on the planet. Very well done!
— Dave Black (@Dave_Blackest) August 4, 2023
Just....wow! Even now, though, Archer seems to nervously walk on egg shells around aspects of Joe's involvement with Hunter's business. IMO, he knows more than what he's divulging.
— Gracelyn 🇺🇸 (@Gracelyn72) August 4, 2023
How long before another indictment drops on Trump, after this interview release?
— Joel Fischer 🇺🇸 (@realJoelFischer) August 4, 2023
It’s interesting. My mind built this character of Archer as a sleazy bad guy. But since he’s willing to be interviewed by Tucker I am more open to listening & hearing what he has to say. Most Democrats would not be as courageous as to make their case in front of the opposition.
— NeoOldster (@pry_rr) August 4, 2023
It’s extremely common for prosecutors to catch criminals by getting their co-conspirators to flip. You aren’t generally going to convict the Al Capones of the world by the testimony of nuns. So even if Archer is guilty of what he has been convicted of (he’s reportedly trying to appeal to the Supreme Court), he still might be one of the best sources of information. At the same time, we also know you can’t just trust what a person like that says—his conviction relates to fraud, after all. So, you look for outside sources of information—something the Republicans in Congress can help with—to support his story.
We would say that the Department of Justice could also help with that, but we all know they won’t, unless we get a new president in 2024.
Vadym Pozharskyi email to Hunter, May 2014
— Sandy 〽️ (@RightGlockMom) August 4, 2023
"We urgently need your advice on how you can use your influence ... " https://t.co/qd5U9x0twf pic.twitter.com/lCmKeg9kF4
this is where we are now
— Dr. Richard Harambe (@Richard_Harambe) August 4, 2023
withholding aid to Ukraine to get them to investigate corruption = impeachable
withholding aid to Ukraine to directly benefit your family = not impeachable https://t.co/YgY5fmOnd2
Babe, wake up! Part is on. https://t.co/0ZqvEIqFyz pic.twitter.com/OLwMSMeejc
— e-beth (@ebeth360) August 4, 2023
The involvement of the President of Poland in recruiting Devon and Hunter to the board of Burisma is new to me!!! https://t.co/wRLsiLvPl6
— JKash Orange MAGA Queen 🍊🍊🍊 (@JKash000) August 4, 2023
.@TuckerCarlson Questions Why Joe Biden Would Pressure the Ukrainian Govt to Fire the Prosecutor Investigating Hunter’s Business
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) August 4, 2023
TUCKER: “Joe Biden knew that his son was on the board of this company [Burisma] that was being hassled by the prosecutor whose firing he was calling… pic.twitter.com/EBH6elb2Sx
.@TuckerCarlson should interview Jeffrey Epstein’s rape victims. https://t.co/qa7Vr3aODZ
— Dr. Interracial 🇺🇸 (@billysandytodd) August 4, 2023
We have little doubt he wants to.
If you want to see where Devon stands regarding Hunter, skip to last 5 minutes. I get the sense that he was intimidated, he glosses over many obvious faults with the Biden's with wide smile and laughter. Extremely fake and inauthentic, but it could be out of fear of retaliation. https://t.co/Ciy1oKnOUe
— Spirit of Admetos (@AdmetosL) August 4, 2023
That’s a fair interpretation.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member