Joe Biden is "the Brand"; Hunter Biden is 'the Access'

While Dan Goldman, the disgraced impeachment attorney for Democrat Adam Schiff, attempts to spin Devon Archer's words, 2 things are indisputable. First, Hunter Biden referred to his dad, then the VP of the U.S. as "the Brand." Second, though Goldman won't admit this, Hunter Biden represented "access" to his then-VP father Joe.

Miranda Devine explains the latter perfectly in her article, writing "I think that the calls were, that’s what it was,' Archer said Monday, according to a source familiar with his testimony. 'They were calls to talk about the weather, and that was signal enough to be powerful.' It wasn’t the content of the calls, in other words, but the fact that they were made. That was the 'signal.'"

How important was Joe Biden to Burisma? According to Archer's testimony, Burisma would've gone under without Joe Biden running interference for Burisma. Burisma paid Hunter millions of dollars. In exchange for that investment, their company survived a serious investigation run by Viktor Shokin. That's a pretty good return on investment.

BREAKING NEWS: The House Oversight and Reform Committee has published the transcript of Archer's interview and this release with testimony included.

Then-Vice President Joe Biden was “the brand” used to send “signals” of power, access, and influence.

Majority Counsel: You keep saying "the brand," but by "brand" you mean the Biden family, correct?

Mr. Archer: Correct.

Majority Counsel: And that brand is what, in your opinion, was the majority of what the value that was delivered from Hunter Biden to Burisma?

Mr. Archer: I didn’t say majority, but I wouldn’t speculate on percentages. But I do think that that was an element of it.

Rep. Andy Biggs: When you say "Biden family" ‑‑ sorry to cut in here. I just want to get a clarification. You aren’t talking about Dr. Jill or anybody else. You’re talking about Joe Biden. Is that fair to say?

Mr. Archer: Yeah, that’s fair to say. Listen, I think it’s ‑‑ I don’t think about it as, you know, Joe directly, but it’s fair. That’s fair to say. Obviously, that brought the most value to the brand.

Majority Counsel asked some important questions:

Majority Counsel: And so what is your basis for knowing that?

Mr. Archer: My basis for knowing that? Well, I think there was ‑‑ there are particular, you know, objectives that Burisma was trying to accomplish. And a lot of it’s about opening doors, you know, globally in D.C. And I think that, you know, that was the, you know ‑‑ and then obviously having those doors opened, you know, sent the right signals, you know, for Burisma to, you know, carry on its business and be successful.

Mr. Archer: My only thought is that I think Burisma would have gone out of business if it didn’t have the brand attached to it. That’s my, like, only honest opinion. But I have no basis for any ‑‑ never heard any conversations –

Rep. Goldman asked some questions next:

Mr. Goldman: But that’s different than Joe Biden’s action.

Mr. Archer: Right.

Mr. Goldman: You’re just talking about that Hunter was on the board.

Mr. Archer: Right. And I think that’s why –

Mr. Goldman: And so –

Mr. Archer: ‑‑ it was able to survive for as long as it did.

Mr. Goldman: By ‑‑ because of additional capital or –

Mr. Archer: Just because of the brand.

Mr. Goldman: Well, I don’t understand. How does that have an impact?

Mr. Archer: Well, the capabilities to navigate D.C. that they were able to, you know, basically be in the news cycle. And I think that preserved them from a, you know, from a longevity standpoint. That’s like my honest ‑‑ that’s like really what I ‑‑ that’s like how I think holistically.

Mr. Goldman: But how would that work?

Mr. Archer: Because people would be intimidated to mess with them.

Mr. Goldman: In what way?

Mr. Archer: Legally.

Goldman hinted that Biden's presence on the speakerphone was about greeting the people, exchanging niceties, etc. This transcript flushes that description away. Finally, there's this report from Catherine Herridge: