Oh what a tangled web we weave

[Res Ipsa]

And another. X acted corruptly at some time. Therefore, X is corrupt. Therefore, anything about X that cannot be explained must be corruption.

It's kind of a "corruption of the gaps" argument.

Here’s how I’m seeing Markk argue this:

Person W was charged at some point with having committed corrupt business activities.
Person X did some unrelated business with Person W.
Person Y works with Person X.
Therefore, Person Z, who is related to Person Y, is corrupt and did ‘something’ wrong that no one can explain or provide details for.

The problem, from a technical argumentation standpoint, is that his entire argument is based on circular reasoning. He has already concluded that the entire Biden family reeks of corruption. That's the lens through which he argues every single point. So it looks like this.

The Biden family is utterly and completely corrupt
A member of the Biden family (including Archer) did something for reasons we don't understand.
Therefore, the something must be corruption. (corruption of the gaps)
Therefore, the Biden family is utterly and completely corrupt.

The bias of step one is the lens through with he selects facts to consider and interprets those facts. And the bias is so obvious that he has no hope of persuading anyone who doesn't start from the same premise.

Now, before Markk comes back with his typical "I am rubber, you are glue" argument, I'll fully admit to my bias in this argument. My bias is in favor of reasoned argument. Obviously, I don't know what the various players did 24/7 throughout the relevant period of time. I do know that Burisma was used as a significant political weapon to try and help Joe Biden lose the presidential election. So, I'm interested in whether there was any there, there. I were convinced that Joe Biden took action for the purpose of getting Hunter his cushy gig with Burisma or as a quid pro quo to reward Burisma for giving Hunter the job, I'd be sad and disappointed. But I'd also be 100% in favor of impeaching Biden.

It would be idiotic to claim, on the body of evidence that we have, that Joe Biden didn't act corruptly with respect to Ukraine, or that Hunter or Archer were perfect little angels. So, without tons of information that I'm unlikely to ever know, the conclusion "Biden did not act corruptly" is not within the Overton Window of this argument. The entire issue is: is the information sufficient to conclude that Joe Biden acted corruptly in the context of Ukraine."

Markk frames the issue as: is there enough to investigate? I think that's already been decided. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security referred the entire issue to the FBI back during the Trump administration. The FBI subpoenaed the laptop as part of the investigation. The Justice Department appears to actively involved, as there is apparently a grand jury involved. That's an investigation. And any attempt to investigate by Congress or any other part of the government risks blowing whatever case the Justice Department thinks it has. So, as with the Mueller report, I'm happy to wait for the results of that investigation and see what turns up. But, in my opinion, arguing that there should be an investigation doesn't make much sense when there is an investigation. For me, I'm interested in whether there is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion that Joe Biden acted corruptly. Because, if there is good evidence of corruption, then it's a legitimate issue of concern. And if it is not, then what occurred during the run up the 2020 election is simply a political smear job.

Markk starts out in this discussion has already made his mind up, and he reacts to my criticisms as if I've made my mind up that everyone is a perfect angel. I haven't. So, when I criticize an argument he makes, I'm not making an affirmative argument for the opposite conclusion. I'm simply saying, you're argument isn't valid.

In trying to figure this out, I think it's crucial to keep in mind that the evidence we have access to is carefully curated by various people. For example, think about Hunter Biden's laptop. The laptop was subpoenaed by the FBI. But there is at least one, if not more, copy of the hard drive out there. At one time, Steve Bannon said he had one. Rudy said he had one. The Post published some photos and a few e-mails. A few popped up in connection with the recent Bioweapons lab claim. But I've not been able to find anything purporting to be a complete collection of all documents on the laptop. All we are seeing from the laptop comes from people who are highly motivated to release documents that look bad for the Bidens, but no motivation to release documents that provide the full context necessary for understanding the e-mails that have been released. Other information comes from similarly motivated like Peter Schweitzer who also carefully curate which facts he presents and which he leaves out. That's why it's critical to both rely on the actual evidence rather than someone else's description and to constantly think about the evidence you aren't seeing.

[Markk]

Here’s how I’m seeing Markk argue this:

Person W was charged at some point with having committed corrupt business activities.
Person X did some unrelated business with Person W.
Person Y works with Person X.
Therefore, Person Z, who is related to Person Y, is corrupt and did ‘something’ wrong that no one can explain or provide details for.

The problem, from a technical argumentation standpoint, is that his entire argument is based on circular reasoning. He has already concluded that the entire Biden family reeks of corruption. That's the lens through which he argues every single point. So it looks like this.

The Biden family is utterly and completely corrupt
A member of the Biden family (including Archer) did something for reasons we don't understand.
Therefore, the something must be corruption. (corruption of the gaps)
Therefore, the Biden family is utterly and completely corrupt.

The bias of step one is the lens through with he selects facts to consider and interprets those facts. And the bias is so obvious that he has no hope of persuading anyone who doesn't start from the same premise.

Now, before Markk comes back with his typical "I am rubber, you are glue" argument, I'll fully admit to my bias in this argument. My bias is in favor of reasoned argument. Obviously, I don't know what the various players did 24/7 throughout the relevant period of time. I do know that Burisma was used as a significant political weapon to try and help Joe Biden lose the presidential election. So, I'm interested in whether there was any there, there. I were convinced that Joe Biden took action for the purpose of getting Hunter his cushy gig with Burisma or as a quid pro quo to reward Burisma for giving Hunter the job, I'd be sad and disappointed. But I'd also be 100% in favor of impeaching Biden.

It would be idiotic to claim, on the body of evidence that we have, that Joe Biden didn't act corruptly with respect to Ukraine, or that Hunter or Archer were perfect little angels. So, without tons of information that I'm unlikely to ever know, the conclusion "Biden did not act corruptly" is not within the Overton Window of this argument. The entire issue is: is the information sufficient to conclude that Joe Biden acted corruptly in the context of Ukraine."

Markk frames the issue as: is there enough to investigate? I think that's already been decided. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security referred the entire issue to the FBI back during the Trump administration. The FBI subpoenaed the laptop as part of the investigation. The Justice Department appears to actively involved, as there is apparently a grand jury involved. That's an investigation. And any attempt to investigate by Congress or any other part of the government risks blowing whatever case the Justice Department thinks it has. So, as with the Mueller report, I'm happy to wait for the results of that investigation and see what turns up. But, in my opinion, arguing that there should be an investigation doesn't make much sense when there is an investigation. For me, I'm interested in whether there is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion that Joe Biden acted corruptly. Because, if there is good evidence of corruption, then it's a legitimate issue of concern. And if it is not, then what occurred during the run up the 2020 election is simply a political smear job.

Markk starts out in this discussion has already made his mind up, and he reacts to my criticisms as if I've made my mind up that everyone is a perfect angel. I haven't. So, when I criticize an argument he makes, I'm not making an affirmative argument for the opposite conclusion. I'm simply saying, you're argument isn't valid.

In trying to figure this out, I think it's crucial to keep in mind that the evidence we have access to is carefully curated by various people. For example, think about Hunter Biden's laptop. The laptop was subpoenaed by the FBI. But there is at least one, if not more, copy of the hard drive out there. At one time, Steve Bannon said he had one. Rudy said he had one. The Post published some photos and a few e-mails. A few popped up in connection with the recent Bioweapons lab claim. But I've not been able to find anything purporting to be a complete collection of all documents on the laptop. All we are seeing from the laptop comes from people who are highly motivated to release documents that look bad for the Bidens, but no motivation to release documents that provide the full context necessary for understanding the e-mails that have been released. Other information comes from similarly motivated like Peter Schweitzer who also carefully curate which facts he presents and which he leaves out. That's why it's critical to both rely on the actual evidence rather than someone else's description and to constantly think about the evidence you aren't seeing.

I have stayed in my opinion the”family” as in his sister, his brother James, and Hunter…for the most part. And I will include Archer and Joe in that.

You state “

A member of the Biden family (including Archer) did something for reasons we don't understand.”

So lets try to understand…

You state “ . For me, I'm interested in whether there is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion that Joe Biden acted corruptly. Because, if there is good evidence of corruption, then it's a legitimate issue of concern. And if it is not, then what occurred during the run up the 2020 election is simply a political smear job.”…

Okay, then let’s go through it, there is a lot to go through.

Res, this a a discussion forum, it is not a court of law, not is not binding…if I am right or if you are right either way the world will not come crashing down.

I have made my mind up, in my opinion they are dirty…but equally you have made your mind they are not…so lets go through all the data, and we might find things that support my opinions and things that lend to yours…that is all I am asking.

I don’t know what relationship Archer (rosamond Seneca partners (RSP) ) had with Burisma before the two men were hired…if you know you can lay it out and I will listen, and opine. I do know however that RSP was founded by Hunter, Archer, and Chris Heinz, Hienz being the then SoS John Kerry’s step son. Right or wrong, they received money from Burisma, which has ties to Russia and is owed by a Oligarch who is by every account I have read, deeply corrupt. And that all three men at the time had personal relationships with both VP Biden, and SoS Kerry, and that both Kerry and JB were deeply involved in the Ukraine.

So without any of this being right or wrong, guilty or not guilty, is this all true? If it is true lets move on, and if it is not true lets discuss what is not true about what I wrote.

[Res Ipsa]

Gotta love it though especially when you say I am jumping around when all I am trying to do is discuss the 1 paragraph of my original assertion. It started with Archer receiving 112k the date before the meeting at the White House…so you see, you jumped over the 112k, which is important to my assertion, to focus on the straw-man about the meeting.

So why did Hunter and Archers company receive 112k dollars from a Russian backed Oligarch, before they were hired by him?

Luv ya
MG

I'm not at all well-versed all on of the ins-and-outs of this, but I believe you're conflating Hunter's 112K tax bill with the 142K payment from Novatus Holding to Rosemont Seneca Bohai.

It can be difficult to keep track of it all. I've looked at the bank statement for the Rosemont Sceneca Bohai account from April 2014. It shows 112K and change deposited from Burisma on that date.

[Res Ipsa]

Here’s how I’m seeing Markk argue this:

Person W was charged at some point with having committed corrupt business activities.
Person X did some unrelated business with Person W.
Person Y works with Person X.
Therefore, Person Z, who is related to Person Y, is corrupt and did ‘something’ wrong that no one can explain or provide details for.

Res…we haven't even begin to explore just how deep this goes, you dodge, duck and, avoid, any attempts to actually dig into this.

Why did Archer and Biden receive 112K…before they were hired, and before JB was to leave to the Ukraine. I don’t know…if you don’t know that’s okay, we can then move on, or if you do know, let me know, give me a cf, and I will review it and we can discuss whether it lends to your position or mine.

Why indeed? The reason one would expect in most cases is that Archer had either done some work for Burisma in a capacity other than a board member, that Burisma was investing in one of the many ventures Archer was involved in, and/or a reimbursement of some kind. That the two deposits are not in round numbers suggests to me that it has to do with the price of something or a cost incurred, but can't tell from what we've been allowed to see.

We do have evidence that Devon Archer hit one early home run with his real estate company, Rosemont Real Estate. He took a trip to Kyiv before he joined the Burisma board to try and drum up investors for that venture. On that trip, he was introduced to MZ. Archer had a number of different ventures he was pursuing at any given time, so it wouldn't be surprising at all for him to try and leverage every contact he made in Ukraine into something that would be advantageous for one or more of his businesses. To understand the $112K deposit in context, we can't start our analysis with the deposit, which you insist on doing. We need to know about what Archer did with Burisma from the point at which he met MZ to the point at which the funds were deposited.

To start with the date of the deposit is a cherry pick. If we want the reason for the deposit, isn't that reason to be found in events that occurred before the date of the deposit?

Here's my suggestion. Let's build a chronology. That's exactly what I do with almost every complicated file that I have to read and analyze to figure out what actually happened. I'd be happy to be bookkeeper or set up a google docs spreadsheet. But I propose that the starting date of this spreadsheet be at least as far back as the revolution in 2014. Even better, to include significant events with respect to MZ and Burisma before Archer met him.

What do you think?

[Markk]

Res…we haven't even begin to explore just how deep this goes, you dodge, duck and, avoid, any attempts to actually dig into this.

Why did Archer and Biden receive 112K…before they were hired, and before JB was to leave to the Ukraine. I don’t know…if you don’t know that’s okay, we can then move on, or if you do know, let me know, give me a cf, and I will review it and we can discuss whether it lends to your position or mine.

Why indeed? The reason one would expect in most cases is that Archer had either done some work for Burisma in a capacity other than a board member, that Burisma was investing in one of the many ventures Archer was involved in, and/or a reimbursement of some kind. That the two deposits are not in round numbers suggests to me that it has to do with the price of something or a cost incurred, but can't tell from what we've been allowed to see.

We do have evidence that Devon Archer hit one early home run with his real estate company, Rosemont Real Estate. He took a trip to Kyiv before he joined the Burisma board to try and drum up investors for that venture. On that trip, he was introduced to MZ. Archer had a number of different ventures he was pursuing at any given time, so it wouldn't be surprising at all for him to try and leverage every contact he made in Ukraine into something that would be advantageous for one or more of his businesses. To understand the $112K deposit in context, we can't start our analysis with the deposit, which you insist on doing. We need to know about what Archer did with Burisma from the point at which he met MZ to the point at which the funds were deposited.

To start with the date of the deposit is a cherry pick. If we want the reason for the deposit, isn't that reason to be found in events that occurred before the date of the deposit?

Here's my suggestion. Let's build a chronology. That's exactly what I do with almost every complicated file that I have to read and analyze to figure out what actually happened. I'd be happy to be bookkeeper or set up a google docs spreadsheet. But I propose that the starting date of this spreadsheet be at least as far back as the revolution in 2014. Even better, to include significant events with respect to MZ and Burisma before Archer met him.

What do you think?

If you want sure, that’s a lot of work, it if you have time great, I appreciate it. I have on vacation a bit, just working around the house so I have had more time than I usually have. But great.

So it is fair to say that we don’t know what the 112k was for, at least so far. I did a lot of research on this years ago, so if you can point me to those threads I would appreciate it. I remember seeing the recite for the check, i just don’t recall if it was said what it was for.

[Markk]

I'm not at all well-versed all on of the ins-and-outs of this, but I believe you're conflating Hunter's 112K tax bill with the 142K payment from Novatus Holding to Rosemont Seneca Bohai.

It can be difficult to keep track of it all. I've looked at the bank statement for the Rosemont Sceneca Bohai account from April 2014. It shows 112K and change deposited from Burisma on that date.

Great, can you please give me a cf on that?

[Res Ipsa]

The problem, from a technical argumentation standpoint, is that his entire argument is based on circular reasoning. He has already concluded that the entire Biden family reeks of corruption. That's the lens through which he argues every single point. So it looks like this.

The Biden family is utterly and completely corrupt
A member of the Biden family (including Archer) did something for reasons we don't understand.
Therefore, the something must be corruption. (corruption of the gaps)
Therefore, the Biden family is utterly and completely corrupt.

The bias of step one is the lens through with he selects facts to consider and interprets those facts. And the bias is so obvious that he has no hope of persuading anyone who doesn't start from the same premise.

Now, before Markk comes back with his typical "I am rubber, you are glue" argument, I'll fully admit to my bias in this argument. My bias is in favor of reasoned argument. Obviously, I don't know what the various players did 24/7 throughout the relevant period of time. I do know that Burisma was used as a significant political weapon to try and help Joe Biden lose the presidential election. So, I'm interested in whether there was any there, there. I were convinced that Joe Biden took action for the purpose of getting Hunter his cushy gig with Burisma or as a quid pro quo to reward Burisma for giving Hunter the job, I'd be sad and disappointed. But I'd also be 100% in favor of impeaching Biden.

It would be idiotic to claim, on the body of evidence that we have, that Joe Biden didn't act corruptly with respect to Ukraine, or that Hunter or Archer were perfect little angels. So, without tons of information that I'm unlikely to ever know, the conclusion "Biden did not act corruptly" is not within the Overton Window of this argument. The entire issue is: is the information sufficient to conclude that Joe Biden acted corruptly in the context of Ukraine."

Markk frames the issue as: is there enough to investigate? I think that's already been decided. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security referred the entire issue to the FBI back during the Trump administration. The FBI subpoenaed the laptop as part of the investigation. The Justice Department appears to actively involved, as there is apparently a grand jury involved. That's an investigation. And any attempt to investigate by Congress or any other part of the government risks blowing whatever case the Justice Department thinks it has. So, as with the Mueller report, I'm happy to wait for the results of that investigation and see what turns up. But, in my opinion, arguing that there should be an investigation doesn't make much sense when there is an investigation. For me, I'm interested in whether there is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion that Joe Biden acted corruptly. Because, if there is good evidence of corruption, then it's a legitimate issue of concern. And if it is not, then what occurred during the run up the 2020 election is simply a political smear job.

Markk starts out in this discussion has already made his mind up, and he reacts to my criticisms as if I've made my mind up that everyone is a perfect angel. I haven't. So, when I criticize an argument he makes, I'm not making an affirmative argument for the opposite conclusion. I'm simply saying, you're argument isn't valid.

In trying to figure this out, I think it's crucial to keep in mind that the evidence we have access to is carefully curated by various people. For example, think about Hunter Biden's laptop. The laptop was subpoenaed by the FBI. But there is at least one, if not more, copy of the hard drive out there. At one time, Steve Bannon said he had one. Rudy said he had one. The Post published some photos and a few e-mails. A few popped up in connection with the recent Bioweapons lab claim. But I've not been able to find anything purporting to be a complete collection of all documents on the laptop. All we are seeing from the laptop comes from people who are highly motivated to release documents that look bad for the Bidens, but no motivation to release documents that provide the full context necessary for understanding the e-mails that have been released. Other information comes from similarly motivated like Peter Schweitzer who also carefully curate which facts he presents and which he leaves out. That's why it's critical to both rely on the actual evidence rather than someone else's description and to constantly think about the evidence you aren't seeing.

I have stayed in my opinion the”family” as in his sister, his brother James, and Hunter…for the most part. And I will include Archer and Joe in that.

You state “

A member of the Biden family (including Archer) did something for reasons we don't understand.”

So lets try to understand…

You state “ . For me, I'm interested in whether there is sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion that Joe Biden acted corruptly. Because, if there is good evidence of corruption, then it's a legitimate issue of concern. And if it is not, then what occurred during the run up the 2020 election is simply a political smear job.”…

Okay, then let’s go through it, there is a lot to go through.

Res, this a a discussion forum, it is not a court of law, not is not binding…if I am right or if you are right either way the world will not come crashing down.

I have made my mind up, in my opinion they are dirty…but equally you have made your mind they are not…so lets go through all the data, and we might find things that support my opinions and things that lend to yours…that is all I am asking.

I don’t know what relationship Archer (rosamond Seneca partners (RSP) ) had with Burisma before the two men were hired…if you know you can lay it out and I will listen, and opine. I do know however that RSP was founded by Hunter, Archer, and Chris Heinz, Hienz being the then SoS John Kerry’s step son. Right or wrong, they received money from Burisma, which has ties to Russia and is owed by a Oligarch who is by every account I have read, deeply corrupt. And that all three men at the time had personal relationships with both VP Biden, and SoS Kerry, and that both Kerry and JB were deeply involved in the Ukraine.

So without any of this being right or wrong, guilty or not guilty, is this all true? If it is true lets move on, and if it is not true lets discuss what is not true about what I wrote.

I'm not treating it as a court of law. But knowing how courts think about evidence is a good resource because they have grappled with the question of what is and is not evidence with respect to claims for hundreds of years. It would make no sense to discard hundreds of years of experience simply because this isn't a court. Not only that, the concepts that lie behind the standard rules of evidence are based on good reasoning, which is exactly what we're doing here. So, when I am talking about concepts, they aren't concepts that should apply only in a court. It's because the represent sound reasoning that everyone should use, including courts.

Now for all your accusations about straw men, which you've never explained, you've introduced an actual straw man. It's this: "I have made my mind up, in my opinion they are dirty…but equally you have made your mind they are not." A straw man is a false representation of someone else's claim or argument. I absolutely do not have my mind made up that the Bidens are not "dirty." In fact, in my view, labeling a person clean or dirty, honest or dishonest, corrupt or not corrupt is a red herring that has no relevance to figuring out what actually happened in a series of complicated events over time. Why? Because placing a simplistic label on a person and then defining them entirely by the label is 100% fallacious. People have almost unlimited motivations whose actions cannot be reduced a single purpose. Honest people lie and dishonest people tell the truth. Clean people do dirty things and dirty people do clean things. People who play by the rules do corrupt things and corrupt people do things that are entire on the up and up. It is a simple mistake in basic reasoning to think you can define people by a label or two and then accurately predict what they will do or have done in the past based on the label.

Let's take just one example. You've labeled MZ "corrupt" and then use the label to decide what his motivations are in making certain decisions. But you've never stopped to think seriously about what MZ's motivations were when he started hiring members for a Burisma. You just assume that his primary motive was to engaged in additional acts of corruption. But you never even think about MZ's actual situation at the time. Corruption was rampant in Ukraine. He was an insider with the previous government, but not with the current government. There was considerable international pressure including from the U.S., on the new government to reduce corruption. He was being threatened with criminal prosecution for corruption. In the actual context, is he thinking "hey, let's use this new guy I know little about and his friend, who I know nothing about other than that he's Joe Biden's son, to set up a corrupt deal with Joe Biden, who is one of the very people stressing anti-corruption corruption efforts, so that I can even get even more money?" Or is he thinking more like "Holy crap. These guys are going to take Burisma away from me. How can I keep that from happening?" The guy may be corrupt, but there's no evidence that he's an idiot. He's already set up to have his meal ticket taken away. Why in the world would he expect Joe Biden to say "sure -- pay my son an inflated salary and I'll steer some sweet, sweet US greenbacks your way" as opposed to using the attempt as evidence of his corruption and having the full force of the U.S. government coming down on him as the poster child of Ukrainian corruption?

That's why your cherry picking of a few events and implying that they are evidence of corruption makes no sense. He's got an obvious interest at the point, keeping his company. If he loses the company, it doesn't matter how much money Burisma gets -- he won't see a cent of it.

All of this is why I'm unwilling to "move on" to your next talking point. Even though you talk about context, you're not really considering context. You're only considering a set of curated facts without taking into consideration the larger context.

[Res Ipsa]

Why indeed? The reason one would expect in most cases is that Archer had either done some work for Burisma in a capacity other than a board member, that Burisma was investing in one of the many ventures Archer was involved in, and/or a reimbursement of some kind. That the two deposits are not in round numbers suggests to me that it has to do with the price of something or a cost incurred, but can't tell from what we've been allowed to see.

We do have evidence that Devon Archer hit one early home run with his real estate company, Rosemont Real Estate. He took a trip to Kyiv before he joined the Burisma board to try and drum up investors for that venture. On that trip, he was introduced to MZ. Archer had a number of different ventures he was pursuing at any given time, so it wouldn't be surprising at all for him to try and leverage every contact he made in Ukraine into something that would be advantageous for one or more of his businesses. To understand the $112K deposit in context, we can't start our analysis with the deposit, which you insist on doing. We need to know about what Archer did with Burisma from the point at which he met MZ to the point at which the funds were deposited.

To start with the date of the deposit is a cherry pick. If we want the reason for the deposit, isn't that reason to be found in events that occurred before the date of the deposit?

Here's my suggestion. Let's build a chronology. That's exactly what I do with almost every complicated file that I have to read and analyze to figure out what actually happened. I'd be happy to be bookkeeper or set up a google docs spreadsheet. But I propose that the starting date of this spreadsheet be at least as far back as the revolution in 2014. Even better, to include significant events with respect to MZ and Burisma before Archer met him.

What do you think?

If you want sure, that’s a lot of work, it if you have time great, I appreciate it. I have on vacation a bit, just working around the house so I have had more time than I usually have. But great.

So it is fair to say that we don’t know what the 112k was for, at least so far. I did a lot of research on this years ago, so if you can point me to those threads I would appreciate it. I remember seeing the recite for the check, i just don’t recall if it was said what it was for.

Sure it'll be a lot of work. But it gives us a framework to organize our discussion around. And even if you remember something only vaguely, it's a least a clue on where to look.

The only additional fact I know that would be relevant to the 112K is the general story of how Archer met MZ. And I don't think I've seen dates for when that happened. If Archer met MZ in Kiev, then I think that would have had to have happened before MZ fled the country. So that gives us some point of reference. I think the Polish member of the board talked about how Devon and Hunter because board members, and there may be something in that information that would help us with timing. I think the first bank statement I've seen for Rosemont Seneca Bohai is March 2014, but I didn't check it for any deposits from Burisma. I'd love to have statements going back six months, but we have what we have.

If we need it, I'm pretty confident I can find that dates that all the LLCs used by Devon and Hunter were formed. I just got done untangling a mess involving layers of holding companies and businesses to figure out who owned who and when, so I'm pretty familiar with how to find that kind of information out. We'll have to be careful to distinguish among the companies when we're tracing money. In general, the ones with Seneca in the name are Hunters and the ones with Rosemont in the name are Devon's. The ones with both names are generally owned by both, with the exception of RSB, which, based on what I read, was owned only by Devon. Between you, me and anyone else who wants to chime in, I'm guessing we can put together lots of information in a way that is easier to address. I don't think we need to kill ourselves doing it, and I don't want to soak up your vacation time. We'll just do it as time permits.

For now, I'll start up a chronology thread. We can keep this one for discussion. I think the exercise would be fun, even if we don't reach any definitive conclusions. At least it gives us a set of facts in common we can refer to.

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for the more complete story about the trial.

You're welcome. The facts are extremely complex, and I don't think any typical juror had a prayer of really understanding what was going on. That's true in lots of cases, though. The legal aspects of what occurred afterwards are also pretty technical.

I think two of the board members cut a deal with the government and testified against the three who went to trial. Without insider witnesses, the government could not have made its case.

After the jury found all three guilty (I don't know whether they were all tried on the same charges), all three filed a motion essentially finding them not guilty because the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient for a reasonable jury to have found them guilty. In considering that motion, the judge must construe all evidence in favor of the government and accept reasonable inferences from the evidence in the government's favor. The judge denied all three motions.

But Archer also filed a motion for a new trial, which is a different legal animal. Under previous opinions issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the appellate court that sets precedent for that trial court, the judge could make a less deferential, more independent review of the evidence to make sure that serious injustice wasn't being done.

The facts involved in the case against Archer weren't generally disputed. The whole scheme to defraud the tribes was concocted by Galinis. He planned, executed, and concealed the fraud to the point that no one else knew he was doing it. The scheme didn't come to light at all until Galinis was arrested for an entire different matter. At that point, one of the other board members uncovered the fraud. Three of them planned and executed a cover up of the scheme, which involved creating a new company and back dating the documents to do so. Except that it's undisputed that Archer was never told what had been discovered. And part of the reason for the elaborate cover up was to avoid Archer finding out about the fraud.

Galini ran a con on the tribe. He also conned the board members. But when three of them discovered the con, they simply tried to cover it up rather than inform the tribe and the authorities. Archer, on the other hand, was treated throughout the venture as an outsider. Outside of his presence, the others referred to him as a "whale investor" and a "trick pony." Just as Archer traded on the name and reputation of Joe Biden and John Kerry, the others were trading on Archer's name and connections.

The con on the tribe was just a pieces of an otherwise legitimate business strategy called a "roll up." As I understand it, the purpose of a roll up is to create a holding company that acquires a number of other companies, or partial ownership of companies, resulting in a valuable set of companies that can be operated at a profit or a holding company that can be sold to other investors for big bucks. It's called a roll up, because the holding company uses each acquisition as some kind of financial leverage to buy the next one. And the people trying to execute the roll up try to look for synergies within the acquisitions that would make the combination more profitable. But it's risky, with the main risk being running out of liquidity or other things that can be leveraged before assembling a portfolio of companies that are profitable as a whole. So it all has to happen pretty quickly. If it doesn't, it just falls apart. The other risk is that finding and taking advantage of synergies is fraught with potential conflicts of interest. The holding company can't just screw over one company to benefit the other.

So, what the case involved was five or six guys out working their contacts, doing research, trying to find good targets for acquisition, figuring out how to acquire, etc. So the process is hectic and chaotic. And to a large extent, the investors involved have to trust each other to know what they are doing and to generally play by the rules. That creates a good environment for a con.

When it came to Archer, the main question whether he "knowingly and willingly" participated in the fraud on the tribe. The actual fraud was Galinis' representation that most of the proceeds from the bond sale would be invested in an independently managed annuity. Instead, the funds went into an account for a fake business with a name similar to the entity that was suppose to purchase and manage the annuity. The account was set up and controlled by Galinis. Some of it was siphoned off by Galinis. The rest was used to purchase much of a second bond issue. And most of that was used to purchase much of the third bond issue. Basically, the tribe was selling bonds to itself, which generates a huge amount of debt to repay without generating anything that would allow the debt to be paid off.

Unlike the other defendants, there was no direct evidence that Archer had knowledge of the fact that the tribe was being defrauded. Even the government's witnesses admitted that they hadn't known about the scheme until Galinis was arrested. And all of the witnesses admitted that, even after they discovered the scam, no one told Archer about it. In fact, they took steps to actively conceal the scheme from Archer.

So, the government's case against Archer consisted almost entirely of documents, some of which it didn't use any witnesses to explain or provide context. The argument was, essentially, that Archer had touched the bond issue enough that he must have known about the fraud. It also took very aggressive positions on what was meant in certain e-mails, despite the lack of any testimony. The biggest weakness in Archer's case is that he was quite willing to cut corners and lie when he thought the consequences didn't matter. For example, when Galinis asked if his purchase of a condo could be done through one of Archer's accounts, he said yes. The purchaser would get the money; Galinis would just get privacy. And Galinis was very private when came to the vast extent of his wealth (which, of course, was not vast at all). So, Archer did misrepresent facts on a few occasions that would have been harmless, if the bond sales had not been a scam. Because it was, they hurt his case.

Archer's defense was that he wasn't in on the con; he was one of the conned. The jury sided with the government and found him guilty. The trial judge reviewed the evidence carefully and concluded that there was a risk that an injustice had been done to Archer based on the complexity of the case and the nature of the evidence on which Archer's conviction was based.

The government appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. It "clarified" it's opinion in one of the cases the trial judge had relied on, resulting in a standard that was more deferential to the jury. It also determined that the evidence was sufficient to meet the "clarified" standard. (I'm using scare quotes because the line between clarifying and changing is extremely thin.)

The judge gave Archer a significantly shorter jail term than the other defendants. I'd have to double check, but I think one year was a mandatory minimum.

[Res Ipsa]

It can be difficult to keep track of it all. I've looked at the bank statement for the Rosemont Sceneca Bohai account from April 2014. It shows 112K and change deposited from Burisma on that date.

Great, can you please give me a cf on that?

If cf means a reference, sure. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ds-Listing When I make chronologies I try to always cite the source. That was I don't spend ours hunted for something I'd already spent time finding.