Oh what a tangled web we weave

[Markk]

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.

Your weren’t talking about be claiming a “meeting” the object that you wanted me to concede that the meeting had nothing to do with Burisma and JB’s possible corruption . LOL come on Res…this is what you wrote

“ 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.”

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.

My position is that he visited, met with, had a meeting with Joe, even with his son, a day after Hunter’s and his company 112k dollars in care of Archer. PS wrote much more to this, to paint his assertion, but you are refusing to look at what he wrote in any context…

2. There is zero evidence that Archer "had a meeting" with Biden. Schweitzer intentionally made that part up.

There is zero evidence that they did not talk business …again what PS did, and what you refuse to examine, is lay out a lot of circumstances that led to what is being asserted, he is basically following the money.

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.

I am very clear that we don’t know for sure that he is corrupt, but I als concede in my opinion I believe he is, as is many of his family members. I believe there is a lot we can look at, but if you don’t want to dig into it why are you even here talking with me? You have set up a straw-man that might make you feel better , but at least hear me out before you past judgement on my motives or of PS, and others that see an issue with the son of a sitting VP leading efforts to give money to the Ukrainian Government for the natural gas industry, working for a corrupt company that will receive much of this money. This is a real issue in my opinion and many others. Evidently you don’t see a problem with that.

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.

Along with, in part
1. The day before meeting a corrupt company with deep ties to Russia deposited 112K in Archers and Hunters company bank account…this is fact
2. The next day Archer pays a visit to JB…this is fact
3. We know that on April 21, Vice President Biden landed in Kyiv for meetings with Ukrainian officials, bringing with him terms for a United States Agency for International Development (USAID) program to assist the Ukrainian natural gas industry.
4. We know the next day Archer was hired to sit on the board at Burisma being paid 83k a month
5. We know on May 13th Hunter was hired to sit on this same board
6. We know f that Hunter was hired because of his name. Or in other words because his father was VP. The ex president of Poland, and also a board member said this.
7. We also know that th e owner of Burisma has/had deep ties with Russia, was the minister of ecology for the Ukraine, and for better lack of term gave licensing right for gas production to his own company, that Hunter was to work for.
8. We also know that MZ, Hunter boss fled the country to avoid possible prosecution
9. We also know Hunter has been in and out of trouble…such as addiction to crack cocaine.
10. We also know Archer is a convicted felon and is at this very moment in prison.
11. We also know there is more

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?"

What I am “claiming “ is because of evidence like I wrote above this should be acknowledged, and there should be an investigation. There is a grand jury looking at Hunter Biden, and I assume much of what I wrote, and stuff like this with China, and other countries. I would hope you would want to see th e pattern in all this and not only with Hunter but with Biden's siblings.

You easily believe a article written by journalist that Hunter and Archer said there was no hanky pinky, as if they would cop to it if their was, and refuse to acknowledge just how deep and dirty the Biden’s are.

[Markk]

HuH…LOL…you are refusing to discuss the evidence, all we have done is gone in circles over the words met, meeting, and visit?

But this is where the troll starts, but I understand.

No, you don’t understand. But nice attempt to deflect.

I’m happy to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence anytime. We’ve been stuck here because you keep insisting that Archer had a private meeting with Biden based on zero evidence. If you’re going to cling to that evidence-free assertion, then it’s no use discussing more evidence with you because you aren’t actually interested in eviden

Let’s try this another way. Would you agree that it is clear that Hunter, Devon, Luke, went to the White House and saw Joe Biden, but the only evidence we have of the reason for the visit is what the three of them told the reporter?

No, I would add we have evidence they met. What they told the report is what it is…again if they were guilty of something, do you think they would tell the reporter. Res Archer is in prison for being a liar and fraud, and that is a fact.

[Res Ipsa]

No, you don’t understand. But nice attempt to deflect.

I’m happy to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence anytime. We’ve been stuck here because you keep insisting that Archer had a private meeting with Biden based on zero evidence. If you’re going to cling to that evidence-free assertion, then it’s no use discussing more evidence with you because you aren’t actually interested in eviden

Let’s try this another way. Would you agree that it is clear that Hunter, Devon, Luke, went to the White House and saw Joe Biden, but the only evidence we have of the reason for the visit is what the three of them told the reporter?

No, I would add we have evidence they met. What they told the report is what it is…again if they were guilty of something, do you think they would tell the reporter. Res Archer is in prison for being a liar and fraud, and that is a fact.

OK, how about this: Would you agree that it is clear that Hunter, Devon, Luke, went to the White House and met Joe Biden, but the only evidence we have of the reason for the visit is what the three of them told the reporter?

[canpakes]

… others that see an issue with the son of a sitting VP leading efforts to give money to the Ukrainian Government for the natural gas industry, working for a corrupt company that will receive much of this money.

Markk, hold up there. I think that you just pulled that one out of your nether regions.

And, you left out a few important details about the aid, while doing so:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate ReleaseJune 15, 2016
FACT SHEET: U.S. Assistance to Ukraine since February 2014

During his meeting with Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, Vice President Joe Biden announced today in Washington that, pending Congressional notification, the White House plans to commit $220 million in new assistance to Ukraine this year in support of economic, political, and energy reforms. This assistance package will continue our support for Ukraine’s efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law, reinforce the foundations for sustainable economic growth, and respond to humanitarian needs. The new assistance will also support other key areas of Prime Minister Groysman’s ambitious reform agenda, including:

- Accelerating customs reform, including by providing legal, regulatory, infrastructure, and e-customs support; creating a new customs monitoring center; and assisting in implementing reforms of the recruitment, selection, vetting, training, and equipping of new customs officers, based on the successful patrol police model.

- Fighting corruption through support for key justice sector reforms, including implementation of the constitutional amendments adopted by the Rada on June 2 and Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko’s reform agenda, and by expanding our partnerships with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, and National Police, as well as support for independent media and civil society.

- Extending decentralization across Ukraine, helping to improve service delivery, increase citizen engagement and oversight, and raise public awareness of the benefits of reforms.

- Expanding support for energy security through programs that establish competitive and transparent gas and electricity markets in line with EU standards, diversify sources of energy, improve energy efficiency, support privatization, and enhance cybersecurity.

In addition, on June 9, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) approved up to $62.5 million in financial support to two private equity funds that will invest in Ukraine across a number of sectors including agribusiness, healthcare, infrastructure, retail, consumer goods, and real estate. These two investments are in addition to OPIC’s total exposure to Ukraine of $185 million, including $73 million in insurance coverage, $97 million in finance exposure, and an estimated $15 million in indirect exposure to Ukraine through other multi‐country investment funds.

The United States is also helping Ukraine improve its business environment to attract more foreign investment through implementation of banking reforms, simplified regulations, enhanced investor rights, and greater transparency. The United States will continue to work closely with the Ukrainian Government to help ensure that the practical experience of U.S. industry is taken into account in Ukraine’s ongoing efforts to prioritize and implement reforms that will improve the business climate and attract private capital.

These initiatives and new commitments are part of more than $1.3 billion in foreign assistance the U.S. government has committed to Ukraine since 2014 to advance reforms, strengthen democratic institutions and civil society, stimulate economic growth, strengthen its defenses, and help Ukraine more safely monitor and secure its borders and defend its territorial integrity.

This includes more than $112 million in humanitarian assistance provided to date to conflict-affected civilians in Ukraine. This funding helps provide emergency shelter, relief commodities, protection activities for children and the elderly, psychosocial support, repair to water infrastructure, and support for short-term job creation for internally displaced persons.

The U.S. government has also provided Ukraine $2 billion in loan guarantees, and signed an agreement on June 3 to allow for the issuance of a third, up to $1 billion loan guarantee in the coming months, pending completion of certain conditions and the Congressional notification process. These loan guarantees help Ukraine stabilize its economy and protect the most vulnerable households from the impact of needed economic adjustment.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th ... ruary-2014


What was that ‘energy security’ aid all about? Here’s the overview:

Energy Security

The U.S. government is working with other international donors to help Ukraine develop strategies to ensure that energy subsidy programs are targeting the most vulnerable Ukrainians and to increase end-use energy efficiency, including among households and in the industrial sector. A new program will accelerate new investments in energy efficiency.

We are supporting Ukrainian efforts to enhance its own energy production, including through technical assistance to help restructure Ukraine’s national oil and gas company, Naftogaz, and through the introduction of new technologies to boost outputs from existing and new conventional gas fields in Ukraine.

In collaboration with other experts, U.S. government advisors are providing technical assistance to the Government of Ukraine to develop a national energy contingency plan for this winter and into 2015.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th ... ruary-2014


So, just what went to Burisma, if anything at all?

The idea that Biden actively funnelled money to Burisma is (also) baseless, experts said.

"I can see no way that USAID money has gone to Burisma," said Anders Åslund, a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

"I am not aware of Burisma receiving any U.S. funds," added Yoshiko Herrera, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who previously headed the university’s center for Russia, East Europe and Central Asia.
…
Money directed to Ukraine’s energy sector was to help Ukraine scale back its dependence on Russia for energy sources by making it more energy efficient, according to the Congressional Research Service, which noted that the United States provided "technical assistance."

To that end, the 2014 law authorizing additional funds took specific steps toward "helping Ukraine reduce its dependence on natural gas imported from the Russian Federation."

A November 2014 White House fact sheet said the United States was working with international donors to help Ukraine boost energy efficiency and supporting Ukraine’s efforts to enhance energy production and restructure its state-owned gas company, Naftogaz, among other things.

There’s no evidence that any of this aid or support went directly to Burisma, nor is there evidence that Joe Biden worked to guide it there.

"All this money went to the Ukrainian government," Åslund said. "None of it went to Burisma."

Markk, not only can you show nothing of any supposed corrupt activities of Joe or Hunter Biden, but you cannot even draw a line from US aid and to Burisma, or even speculate on why Burisma would receive aid at all in the first place under the plan.

[Res Ipsa]

Dammit, canpakes! You spoiled my fun. I have 10 or 12 tabs open in preparation of moving on to that point. Markk is absolutely off the rails on this claim. What USAID did was provide $1 billion in loan guarantees, not cash. The IMF, who gave the first emergency economic aid to Ukraine, prepared a thorough report on Ukraine's financial situation in April 2014. And that is critical context that Markk doesn't discuss at all. Ukraine was in deep financial trouble to point that it was frozen out of private funding sources to help it dig itself out of the mess.

With the loan guarantees, Ukraine was able to go to the private financial market and raise funds equal to the amount of the guarantee. But it decided what to do with the money. There is no evidence that Joe Biden was involved in how it was spent.

Markk is trying to prop up his claims about the "meeting" with other "facts" that aren't actually facts. Just more baseless speculation

What other critical context does he omit? Why did everyone who was trying to help Ukraine at the time emphasize the need for change in how the state owned natural gas company was operating, including increasing domestic production? He only wants to talk about "context" that he thinks supports his conclusion that the "Bidens" are dirty, dirty dirty. That's what happens when one relies on a political smear artist to provide the "context."

Now I've got to close all of these damn tabs.

[Res Ipsa]

What was happening in April 2014 with respect to Ukraine?

1. Military intervention and destabilization by Russia. Russia basically seized the Crimean peninsula and tried to do the same with a couple of eastern regions in Ukraine.

2. Ukraine's government owned gas company had been buying 50% of its natural gas from Russia's government owned gas company. It had then resold the gas to its citizens at a significant loss. The result was that Ukraine has one of the lowest prices of gas in the world, and had one of the highest per capita rates of gas consumption in the world. In response to the revolution, the Russian company eliminated contractual discounts and jacked the price up something like 200% to 300%. Ukraine had not raised the sale price to its citizens, so it couldn't pay for the gas it was buying and started to run up a huge debt to the Russian company. For this, and other reasons, Ukraine could not raise any funds from private capital markets.

3. One of the quid pro quos for any help at all from anyone was significant reduction of the omnipresent corruption in the Ukraine.

4. MK, the owner of the company that owned Burisma, which owned companies that produced natural gas had been part of the Russian aligned government in the past. He had abused his government power to corruptly obtain production licenses that financially benefitted Burisma and him. The Ukraine government announced criminal investigations and it's intent to prosecute him personally for corruption, and he fled the country. Sometime in April, he decided to try and clean up Burisma -- or at least its image. So he began looking for outsiders with a name to sit on the Board of Directors.

So, the IMF, the EU, the U.S. and other countries were trying to get Ukraine the help it needed to stop the financial bleeding at the same time Burisma was trying to spruce up its image. There are only so many days in April, so it's not hard to suggest that unrelated events are somehow related by carefully selecting which evidence to present and which to ignore.

Markk, if you dispute anything in points 1-4, I'll be happy to link to evidence.

[Res Ipsa]

No, you don’t understand. But nice attempt to deflect.

I’m happy to discuss the evidence or lack of evidence anytime. We’ve been stuck here because you keep insisting that Archer had a private meeting with Biden based on zero evidence. If you’re going to cling to that evidence-free assertion, then it’s no use discussing more evidence with you because you aren’t actually interested in eviden

Let’s try this another way. Would you agree that it is clear that Hunter, Devon, Luke, went to the White House and saw Joe Biden, but the only evidence we have of the reason for the visit is what the three of them told the reporter?

No, I would add we have evidence they met. What they told the report is what it is…again if they were guilty of something, do you think they would tell the reporter. Res Archer is in prison for being a liar and fraud, and that is a fact.

Are you familiar with the facts of the case that landed Archer in prison? Can you tell me exactly what he did that defrauded the tribe?

[Markk]

… others that see an issue with the son of a sitting VP leading efforts to give money to the Ukrainian Government for the natural gas industry, working for a corrupt company that will receive much of this money.

Markk, hold up there. I think that you just pulled that one out of your nether regions.

And, you left out a few important details about the aid, while doing so:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate ReleaseJune 15, 2016
FACT SHEET: U.S. Assistance to Ukraine since February 2014

During his meeting with Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman, Vice President Joe Biden announced today in Washington that, pending Congressional notification, the White House plans to commit $220 million in new assistance to Ukraine this year in support of economic, political, and energy reforms. This assistance package will continue our support for Ukraine’s efforts to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law, reinforce the foundations for sustainable economic growth, and respond to humanitarian needs. The new assistance will also support other key areas of Prime Minister Groysman’s ambitious reform agenda, including:

- Accelerating customs reform, including by providing legal, regulatory, infrastructure, and e-customs support; creating a new customs monitoring center; and assisting in implementing reforms of the recruitment, selection, vetting, training, and equipping of new customs officers, based on the successful patrol police model.

- Fighting corruption through support for key justice sector reforms, including implementation of the constitutional amendments adopted by the Rada on June 2 and Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko’s reform agenda, and by expanding our partnerships with the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, and National Police, as well as support for independent media and civil society.

- Extending decentralization across Ukraine, helping to improve service delivery, increase citizen engagement and oversight, and raise public awareness of the benefits of reforms.

- Expanding support for energy security through programs that establish competitive and transparent gas and electricity markets in line with EU standards, diversify sources of energy, improve energy efficiency, support privatization, and enhance cybersecurity.

In addition, on June 9, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) approved up to $62.5 million in financial support to two private equity funds that will invest in Ukraine across a number of sectors including agribusiness, healthcare, infrastructure, retail, consumer goods, and real estate. These two investments are in addition to OPIC’s total exposure to Ukraine of $185 million, including $73 million in insurance coverage, $97 million in finance exposure, and an estimated $15 million in indirect exposure to Ukraine through other multi‐country investment funds.

The United States is also helping Ukraine improve its business environment to attract more foreign investment through implementation of banking reforms, simplified regulations, enhanced investor rights, and greater transparency. The United States will continue to work closely with the Ukrainian Government to help ensure that the practical experience of U.S. industry is taken into account in Ukraine’s ongoing efforts to prioritize and implement reforms that will improve the business climate and attract private capital.

These initiatives and new commitments are part of more than $1.3 billion in foreign assistance the U.S. government has committed to Ukraine since 2014 to advance reforms, strengthen democratic institutions and civil society, stimulate economic growth, strengthen its defenses, and help Ukraine more safely monitor and secure its borders and defend its territorial integrity.

This includes more than $112 million in humanitarian assistance provided to date to conflict-affected civilians in Ukraine. This funding helps provide emergency shelter, relief commodities, protection activities for children and the elderly, psychosocial support, repair to water infrastructure, and support for short-term job creation for internally displaced persons.

The U.S. government has also provided Ukraine $2 billion in loan guarantees, and signed an agreement on June 3 to allow for the issuance of a third, up to $1 billion loan guarantee in the coming months, pending completion of certain conditions and the Congressional notification process. These loan guarantees help Ukraine stabilize its economy and protect the most vulnerable households from the impact of needed economic adjustment.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th ... ruary-2014


What was that ‘energy security’ aid all about? Here’s the overview:

Energy Security

The U.S. government is working with other international donors to help Ukraine develop strategies to ensure that energy subsidy programs are targeting the most vulnerable Ukrainians and to increase end-use energy efficiency, including among households and in the industrial sector. A new program will accelerate new investments in energy efficiency.

We are supporting Ukrainian efforts to enhance its own energy production, including through technical assistance to help restructure Ukraine’s national oil and gas company, Naftogaz, and through the introduction of new technologies to boost outputs from existing and new conventional gas fields in Ukraine.

In collaboration with other experts, U.S. government advisors are providing technical assistance to the Government of Ukraine to develop a national energy contingency plan for this winter and into 2015.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th ... ruary-2014


So, just what went to Burisma, if anything at all?

The idea that Biden actively funnelled money to Burisma is (also) baseless, experts said.

"I can see no way that USAID money has gone to Burisma," said Anders Åslund, a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

"I am not aware of Burisma receiving any U.S. funds," added Yoshiko Herrera, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who previously headed the university’s center for Russia, East Europe and Central Asia.
…
Money directed to Ukraine’s energy sector was to help Ukraine scale back its dependence on Russia for energy sources by making it more energy efficient, according to the Congressional Research Service, which noted that the United States provided "technical assistance."

To that end, the 2014 law authorizing additional funds took specific steps toward "helping Ukraine reduce its dependence on natural gas imported from the Russian Federation."

A November 2014 White House fact sheet said the United States was working with international donors to help Ukraine boost energy efficiency and supporting Ukraine’s efforts to enhance energy production and restructure its state-owned gas company, Naftogaz, among other things.

There’s no evidence that any of this aid or support went directly to Burisma, nor is there evidence that Joe Biden worked to guide it there.

"All this money went to the Ukrainian government," Åslund said. "None of it went to Burisma."

Markk, not only can you show nothing of any supposed corrupt activities of Joe or Hunter Biden, but you cannot even draw a line from US aid and to Burisma, or even speculate on why Burisma would receive aid at all in the first place under the plan.

You just provided a link unwittingly that showed that part of the over 1 billion in aid and loan guarantees went to the Ukraine.Part of that money went to what, read your link, the natural gas industry. Burisma was the #1 or #2 gas company at the time, depending on what one reads, was allotted funds, so to think that MZ was not after a chunk of that is just ridiculous.
You need to focus here, and re-read your link, and understand THE REASON MZ wanted Hunter Biden on the board was to get a part of that 1.32 Billion in aid. Whether Burisma got any or not, is irrelevant, what is evident is that MZ wanted a chunk of it and that is why he went after the son of the man that would be a big part of how th e monies were distributed.

Also if you believe that the leading gas company in the Ukraine, with all the corruption and Russian influence did not benefit form the over 1 billion that went out, you are truly naïve.

[Markk]

No, I would add we have evidence they met. What they told the report is what it is…again if they were guilty of something, do you think they would tell the reporter. Res Archer is in prison for being a liar and fraud, and that is a fact.

Are you familiar with the facts of the case that landed Archer in prison? Can you tell me exactly what he did that defrauded the tribe?

LOL.now your are sticking up for archer?

[Marcus]

If they got the monies up front MZ would not have needed the Biden name... is that MZ wanted a chunk of it and that is why he went after the son of the man that would be a big part of how th e monies were distributed. Remember the ex-president of Poland is on record of saying that Hunter was only hired because of his name...

So the ex-president of Poland is on record saying that hiring Hunter was because of his name, and your statement above implies the Biden name was "needed" so that MZ could get part of the money. Did the ex-pres of Poland say that also, or are you connecting the two things with no basis to so so, and implying a conspiracy that wasn't there?

I'll be more specific. Are you misrepresenting what the polish ex pres was saying?