Markk wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 5:38 pm
Ok. If you aren’t claiming that the meeting had anything to do with Burisma, I’ll take that as a concession that it isn’t evidence of any corruption by Joe Biden. Cool.
You said there was a meeting…and I responded that neither one of us know what happened in the meeting? Your only evidence is they did not talk about Burisma is the word of a crack head and a convicted felon that is in prison, and that both worked for a Russian back Oligrach…my evidence is the time line that was before and after the meeting.
That is why I want to move forward and share/discuss the evidence for my concerns. Did JB collude here…maybe he did and maybe he didn’t but there is certainly a lot of circumstantial evidence that he MIGHT have. in my opinion I think he and his family are dirty, but I am open to being wrong…maybe he was oblivious that his son and best friend were working for a Russian backed criminal, maybe in his quid quo pro he did not know the prosecutor wanted to go after but I find that equally hard to proceed, for me both are very hard to believe.
Markk, I was clearly asking you about your claims, not mine. See those four words that precede the words you bolded: "If you aren't claiming..." Please don't cherry pick words out of a sentence to claim that my position is the exact opposite of what I've been telling you for pages now.
Just in case you need a handy reference, here are my claims.
1. Archer didn't pay a "private visit" to the White House. His visit was as public as that of any other person who goes to the White House, as shown by the fact that his visit was logged and the log was made publicly available on the internet by the Obama administration. Claiming that Archer paid a "private visit" to the White House is also highly misleading, in that the visit included his young son and Joe Biden's son. Schweitzer deliberately omitted that the White House visit included Luke because it undercut the conspiracy theory he intended to construct.
2. There is zero evidence that Archer "had a meeting" with Biden. Schweitzer intentionally made that part up.
3. You are claiming that Biden was corrupt, and so it is your burden to provide evidence that he acted corruptly. I have no obligation to disprove your assertions or to produce any evidence that response to claims you make that are not based on evidence.
To date, on the issue of the alleged meeting, we have the following evidence:
1. The White House log.
2. The photo of Hunter Biden's schedule for the same day.
3. The New Yorker article's report of what the three said about the purpose of the visit.
ETA: Also, what exactly are you claiming about Joe Biden. Are you claiming that he acted corruptly in how he used his office in connection with Ukraine or are you claiming that he "might have acted corruptly?"
