Just so I understand

oh my goodness... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

... So YOU don't believe Joe Biden got 5 Million from Burisma, Tiny? Originally Posted by Salty Again

Salty and nevergaveitathought,

I may have to reexamine my view. Based on what nevergaveitathought wrote, I need to take a closer look at Devon Archer's transcript.

Here's a link to the FBI report on the interview with the informant.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/down...rassley_-biden

This report is where the "5 million" figures came from.

I suspect the 5 million figure is just something Zlochevsky (see below) pulled out of the air, because it had a "5" in it, and furthermore believe it's likely all or almost all the money went to Hunter, or to Hunter Biden, James Biden, and/or their kids and prostitutes and drug dealers and the like.

In the report, Ostapenko is the chief financial officer of Bursima and Zlochevsky is the CEO and owner of Burisma. The informant sounds like a U.S. investment banker for the oil and gas E&P industry Some bullet points-

1. Burisma hired Hunter and the former President or Prime Minister of Poland. Hunter was hired to "protect us, through his Dad, from all kinds of problems."

2. Burisma was in contact with the informant about buying a U.S. oil company because it couldn't rely on Hunter, because Hunter "wasn't smart". Zlochevsky in fact said his dog is smarter than Hunter.

3. The informant believed the fact that Burisma had been under investigation in Ukraine and that Joe Biden had stated Shokin was corrupt could make it difficult for Burisma to become a publicly traded company in the U.S. Zlochevsky said Hunter could take care of that through his Dad.

4. The informant suggested that Burisma spend, say, $50,000 to pay an attorney in Ukraine to litigate Shokin's charges. Zlochevsky laughed and said something like "$50,000 contains a "5". It cost (or is going to cost) $5 million to pay one Biden and $5 million to pay another."

5. Zlochevsky said he needed to keep Hunter on his board "so everything will be OK."

6. Zlochevsky said both Hunter and Joe Biden wanted him to retain Hunter on his board.

7. Zlochevsky said, after the 2016 election, that he didn't want to pay the Bidens and but was pushed to pay them.

8. Zlochevsky said he had a total of 17 recordings involving the Bidens and two of them included Joe Biden.

9. Zlochevsky said he was coerced into paying the Bidens to ensure Shokin was fired.

10. Zlochevsky said he did not send any payments directly to the "Big Guy". He said it would take investigators 10 years to find the records of payments to Joe, presumably because they go through so many entities and intermediaries.

Now you have to take all this with a grain of salt. It's second or third hand and the informant said Russian and Ukrainian businessmen like to brag and show off about the people they've paid off. I think what he's getting at is that your average oligarch would be proud to tell his buddies he has the U.S. Vice President in his pocket, regardless of whether it's true or not.

I'm still inclined to believe that Shokin would have gotten fired as a result of pressure from the IMF, the EU, and the State Department, regardless of whether Joe Biden were vice president. The report is consistent with Devon Archer's testimony, that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access to his father.

Furthermore, I still don't understand why Joe Biden would be bragging about his role in Shokin's firing if he were truly taking direct payoffs.

Looking at Biden's proposed changes to the tax code, where he would lower the lifetime exemption on gifts and estates to $3.5 million, if he were on the take, he'd likely rather see the money going to his kids and grandkids rather than directly to himself. If he dies with a big estate, under his own plan, the government would take 40% of it. Plus he's got his political career to worry about. Presumably he'd much rather see the money go to Hunter instead of receive it himself. What history has shown us, with Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sander's tax plans, is that politicians propose to change the tax code in ways that won't hurt them, just other people.

Finally, according to Vitaliy Kasko, the deputy Ukrainian prosecutor who's the only person I'd trust in the whole sordid Burisma/Shokin/Hunter Biden/Giuliani mess, the Burisma investigation was shelved before Shokin was removed, and there was no pressure from anyone in the USA to close the case against Zlochevsky. My guess is that Zlochevsky paid off Shokin.

Regardless of whether he's guilty or innocent, it's going to be hard to pin anything on Joe.

Nevergaveitathought, What's your source for the $50,000 per month rent paid by Hunter to Joe? A couple of my friends said the same thing. What I'm finding is this which would indicate it's fiction,

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...x=1674168924-1

... Don't waste our time, mate.

... You ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Joe had nothing to do with
any of this?? ... "Knew nothing" of Hunter's deals and
"Never met" ANY of Hunter's business associates??

And Hunter wasn't peddling influence and access to his father
for money? ... $$$$$$$$

... And now it's "pinning things on Joe"?? ...

##### Salty

... Don't waste our time, mate.

... You ACTUALLY BELIEVE that Joe had nothing to do with
any of this?? ... "Knew nothing" of Hunter's deals and
"Never met" ANY of Hunter's business associates??

And Hunter wasn't peddling influence and access to his father
for money? ... $$$$$$$$

... And now it's "pinning things on Joe"?? ...

##### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

That’s not true and it’s not what I wrote. You’re making things up. In fact I believe the opposite of what you say I do. I am questioning though that when Hunter provided access to his father, whether that access involved more than Joe discussing the weather and encouraging people to give money to his son. You and nevergaveitathought and especially the FBI memo have convinced me it’s possible, in the case of Burisma.

. The report is consistent with Devon Archer's testimony, that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access to his father.


Originally Posted by Tiny

tho oft reported as such

devon archer never testified that hunter was selling the illusion of access

the phrase "illusion of access" was from dim. rep. goldman and was meant as a smoke screen

devon archer,

after being hit with that phrase, a phrase which did have a hook that was meant to have an unthinking fish swallow, in order to provide a useful sound bite to repeat

and goldman did falsely repeat it

archer, upon reflection denied the phrase

here is the exchange:

"It's not about selling access to his father. It's about selling the illusion of access to his father. Is that fair?" Goldman questioned.

"Is that fair? I mean, yeah, that is – I think that's – that's almost fair," Archer responded.

"Almost fair. Why almost fair?" Goldman probed.

"Because there – there is – there are touch points and contact points that I can't deny that happened, but nothing of material was discussed. But I can't go on record saying that there was – there was communications," Archer replied.

devon went on:

"People send signals and those signals are basically used as currency. And that's kind of how a lot of D.C. operators and foreign tycoons and businessmen work," Archer described in questioning.

so there was goldman, himself, coming up with that phrase, fishing for archer to agree to there only being an illusion of access

and archer, after clearing his head, saying no because even though archer never heard a direct quid pro quo....craftiness doesn't work that way

Maybe some remember this article from 3 months ago:

Comer shows Bidens got $1M from Romania as Joe highlighted corruption - MSN

WASHINGTON — The House Oversight Committee revealed Wednesday that more than $1 million flowed from a crooked Romanian businessman to the Biden family while then-Vice President Joe Biden paid lip service to cleaning up corruption in the Eastern European nation.

The revelation, which committee chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) will lay out at a morning press conference, builds out public knowledge of one of first son Hunter Biden’s lesser-known engagements with dodgy associates in countries where his father held sway.

In a 36-page memo, the committee cites subpoenaed bank records to describe how $3 million was allegedly transferred from Gabriel Popoviciu’s Bladon Enterprises Limited to Robinson Walker LLC — controlled by Hunter’s business partner Rob Walker — between November 2015 and May 2017.

Of the $3 million, the memo says, roughly one-third — $1,038,627.08 — was transferred to bank accounts belonging to Hunter Biden, first daughter-in-law Hallie Biden and an unnamed Biden family member. The procedure mirrors a similar division of a roughly $3 million haul in early 2017 from Chinese firm CEFC China Energy. About a third of that amount was shared among Hunter, Hallie, first brother James Biden and a fourth, unidentified Biden, according to an Oversight Committee memo from March...

But do you remember this photo from 3 days ago?:



That guy, right there, is the recently former US Ambassador to Romania, just kick'n back with the Big Guy. Probably discussing weather and what-not. Right Comrades?

Nevergaveitathought, What's your source for the $50,000 per month rent paid by Hunter to Joe? A couple of my friends said the same thing. What I'm finding is this which would indicate it's fiction,
Originally Posted by Tiny

the rent figure was in an email of hunter's showing rent paid and
his daddy's delaware address

but later the amount was claimed to be rent for an office

That’s not true and it’s not what I wrote. You’re making things up. In fact I believe the opposite of what you say I do. I am questioning though that when Hunter provided access to his father, whether that access involved more than Joe discussing the weather and encouraging people to give money to his son. You and nevergaveitathought and especially the FBI memo have convinced me it’s possible, in the case of Burisma. Originally Posted by Tiny

... WHAT am I "making up"?? ... Do YOU see the
QUESTION MAKRS there as I asked that of you.

So Joe was discussing "weather" with Hunter's
business partners and NOT them giving him money
- is that what you're saying?? (Question Marks there)

So IF we actually LISTEN to what Joe has said
about all of this - he's DENYED everything, but we
surely know what a liar he is... We are supposed
to believe that the Vice President of The US
had NO IDEA just WHO and WHAT his son's
business partners were and were doing??

Hmmm... And then there's the laundering the money issue.
How do the Bidens explain THAT??

... Just askin' - just so I understand.

#### Salty

Sad your running mate won't be able to respond. Although you did try to save him a few times.

One of the few that hijacks his own threads...although there is another.

now as to the burisma affair, you claim the whole thing about the prosecutor and hunter and joe's involvement is a fiction

the strange coincidences of the whole thing including the suspect character of both joe and hunter makes it very difficult to think the coincidences were innocent

and what makes the "coincidences" even more suspect is that joe biden has lied about every statement he has made concerning the whole thing, and has changed his story repeatedly

devon archer, in a 3 hour transcribed sworn interview allows the following:

1. he and hunter and two burisma executives met in dubai on dec 4, 2015

2. at that meeting hunter was told by one of the burisma dudes, zlonchevsky, that burisma needed help from the united states government to deal with pressure from viktor shokin, prosecutor

3. hunter was told to call :d.c."

4. 3 days later joe biden goes to ukraine - the travel had been previously planned

5. biden was originally planning to unveil an extra 1 billion in loan guarantees to help ukraine's economy

6. but on his plane ride to ukraine, he changed his mind and on Dec 8, he gave a speech about how corrupt shokin was.

7. during the December 2015 trip, joe biden threatened the ukrainian government that the u.s. would withhold loan guarantees if ukraine did not fire shokin

but december 2015 was not the start of the corruption:

mike mccormick, a 15 year staffer under obama, with 6 of them working with biden, tells the following tale:

he overheard conversations involving joe biden, aide jake sullivan and the press on Air Force Two before a trip to Kyiv, Ukraine, on april 21, 2014.

biden's reasons for his trip included talking up U.S. investment in the ukrainian energy sector

this was just days after hunter joined the board of burisma,

hunter joined the board of burisma on april 18, 3 days before biden went to ukraine and talked up an energy sector investment

the critical piece, that hunter was on the board, was not made public until May 12.

Months later, and well after the trip, Congress allocated $50 million to Ukraine's energy sector

funny thing- the investment was for fracking, while biden and obama were shutting down american oil exploration, biden was trying to pass out tax payer money for it in ukraine

mccormick says the events suggests that biden funneled american money to ukraine to "enrich" himself and his family, using his influence and american money to aid hunter's energy "career"

and the left merely says everyone wanted shokin fired...oh yeah?

one of the latest defenses by the main stream media for joe is that the money hasnt been traced to joe

well as jonathan turley says, an 80 year old man, already comfortable with government pensions etc, receives benefit by his children and grandchildren receiving benefit, taking care of his family is a joe biden benefit

and money was mysteriously paid to grandkids etc

leaving aside for a moment hunter's grousing that "i have to pay my father's bills" and his emails that say he paid his father $50k a month rent, and 10% for the big guy.... biden benefited when hunter and his brother and his grandkids benefited

the dimocrats were left with trying to protect joe with their own illusion, that hunter was selling the "illusion of access", phrasing a dim congressman made up in the hopes it would give cover to joe and their media could spin that out to america Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

OK, I read the first 45 pages of the 141 page transcript with Devon Archer, and I'm not inclined to read the rest. What I've read so far indicates, like I said, that Shokin was in Burisma's pocket. Burisma had no motivation to push to get him fired. That's what Archer was told or spun by Burisma executives. Archer said neither Hunter nor any Burisma officials ever discussed the investigation by Shokin, except to indicate Shokin wasn't a problem.

And, on Hunter's almost daily calls with his father, when Hunter put Joe on the phone to impress foreign clients, the topics of conversation were indeed innocuous, like the weather, according to Archer.

Archer did refer to the Biden family brand -- that was a large part of what Burisma was paying Hunter for he says.

Hunter said he can't guide "his guy" (Joe), but he can sure take credit for it if it turns out to benefit Burisma.

And yes, there were D.C. phone calls. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Joe Biden pushed for the aid for Ukraine for fracking, that would greatly benefit Burisma, because his son was on the board.

Burisma viewed Hunter as akin to a lobbyist, and wanted his help in D.C., where a lot of power is flexed. And undoubtedly Hunter played along and/or provided real help. For example, Burisma hoped Hunter could help Burisma's owner get a U.S. visa, and get 23 million pounds of the company's money out of the UK where it was tied up because of corruption allegations. Archer says there were constant requests for help like this. This brings up the question, why was the Justice Department and IRS going to settle criminal allegations without bringing up Hunter's failure to register as a foreign agent? Paul Manafort certainly didn't get that accommodation.

Archer's testimony isn't black and white, in absolving or incriminating Joe Biden, even though both sides want to paint it as such.

I still believe, but do not know, that Joe Biden wasn't responsible for Shokin getting fired. Rather the whole Shokin affair was cooked up by Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas, and Igor Furman to ingratiate themselves with Trump and do a deal with the Ukrainian National Gas Company that would line their pockets. They needed to get rid of the U.S. ambassador to do that, and succeeded. They also got the assistance of the Department of Energy and Rick Perry to pursue their deal.

Shokin's biggest benefactor, bigger than Burisma, was a Ukrainian oligarch, Dmitro Firtash, who was holed up in Austria because if he went anywhere else he'd be extradited to the USA to face charges. Giuliani et al were trying to work a grand deal where the USA would drop charges against Firtash, Shokin would incriminate Joe Biden, and Parnas and Furman would get help with the business deal. It didn't work out that way though. Instead Trump got impeached.

More details in an old thread,

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...ghlight=shokin

This Bloomberg article is particularly enlightening,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-s-biden-claim

Viktor Kasko, mentioned in the article, left the prosecutors office because of the corruption and because his boss Shokin wouldn't prosecute the bad guys:

Shokin took no action to pursue cases against Zlochevsky throughout 2015. Kasko said he had urged Shokin to pursue the investigations.

I agree with your thoughts about kids and grandkids. I'm not seeing evidence, that's not made up, for the $50,000 per month rental payments to Joe.

Did hear a news report that there are e-mils or memos where Hunter Biden and then VP Biden did talk about business amounting to quid Pro Quo dsealings with foreign governments . . .on non-government accounts . . .using three different aliases for the now President Biden?

joe biden used an alias to send emails

"robert peters"

biden's assistant used his alias to schedule a meeting with the president of ukraine

and the only person copied on that email is ....hunter

leaving that aside for a moment

about the prosecutor shokin from the daily caller:

Devon Archer to Tucker Carlson: “Shokin was considered a threat to the business…. I think anyone in government is always a threat and always trying to shake down these businesses that were highly successful…And so at the end of the day, Shokin was taking a look” @DailyCaller https://t.co/LNhZnzMwAO

Archer told Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson after his testimony that Shokin was considered a “threat” to Burisma’s business and also recalled a raid on Zlochevsky’s property.

Archer sat on Burisma’s board with Hunter Biden and testified that Hunter “called D.C.” in December 2015 during Burisma’s board meeting in Dubai because of pressure from Zlochevsky and Pozharskyi. Archer could not confirm whether Joe Biden was on the receiving end of his son’s phone call.

to peter doocy joe biden said that archer's testimony was "not true"

mike mccormick, a 15 year staffer under obama, with 6 of them working with biden, tells the following tale:

he overheard conversations involving joe biden, aide jake sullivan and the press on Air Force Two before a trip to Kyiv, Ukraine, on april 21, 2014.

biden's reasons for his trip included talking up U.S. investment in the ukrainian energy sector

this was just days after hunter joined the board of burisma,

hunter joined the board of burisma on april 18, 3 days before biden went to ukraine and talked up an energy sector investment

the critical piece, that hunter was on the board, was not made public until May 12.

Months later, and well after the trip, Congress allocated $50 million to Ukraine's energy sector

funny thing- the investment was for fracking, while biden and obama were shutting down american oil exploration, biden was trying to pass out tax payer money for it in ukraine

mccormick says the events suggests that biden funneled american money to ukraine to "enrich" himself and his family, using his influence and american money to aid hunter's energy "career" Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

This was intriguing so I looked into it a little. I'm wondering if it overstates the case against Joe Biden. Do you know if the following is the $50 million aid package?

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...ackage-ukraine

If so it appears that only a part of the $50 million went to encourage natural gas production in general and shale gas production (fracking) in particular.

On one hand you can see why the Obama administration would want to improve Ukrainian energy security. Russia, as the major supplier of the gas to the country could put the screws to the Ukrainians any time it wanted to. On the other hand, given Joe's attempts to put our domestic oil and gas industry on the road to extinction, this aid to the Ukrainians reeks of hypocrisy, considering Hunter was on the Burisma board.

I'd be curious to know more about Hunter's presence on the plane to Ukraine. I'm not seeing it mentioned elsewhere. We know he was on the vice presidential jet with Joe on one of his business trips to China.

joe biden used an alias to send emails

"robert peters"

biden's assistant used his alias to schedule a meeting with the president of ukraine

and the only person copied on that email is ....hunter

leaving that aside for a moment

about the prosecutor shokin from the daily caller:

Devon Archer to Tucker Carlson: “Shokin was considered a threat to the business…. I think anyone in government is always a threat and always trying to shake down these businesses that were highly successful…And so at the end of the day, Shokin was taking a look” @DailyCaller https://t.co/LNhZnzMwAO

Archer told Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson after his testimony that Shokin was considered a “threat” to Burisma’s business and also recalled a raid on Zlochevsky’s property.

Archer sat on Burisma’s board with Hunter Biden and testified that Hunter “called D.C.” in December 2015 during Burisma’s board meeting in Dubai because of pressure from Zlochevsky and Pozharskyi. Archer could not confirm whether Joe Biden was on the receiving end of his son’s phone call.

to peter doocy joe biden said that archer's testimony was "not true" Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

About your other post, I guess we don't really know yet whether there was info related to Hunter's business dealings in the emails where Joe used the pseudonyms. It will be interesting to see what develops there.

And yes, any prosecutor general was going to be a threat to Burisma and its owner Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky fraudulently transferred gas permits to Burisma when he was Minister for Natural Resources, and was accused of tax fraud and money laundering too. Still, the evidence indicates that Shokin wasn't pursing any investigation at the time he was removed, presumably because Zlochevsky had paid him off.

And yes, any prosecutor general was going to be a threat to Burisma and its owner Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky fraudulently transferred gas permits to Burisma when he was Minister for Natural Resources, and was accused of tax fraud and money laundering too. Still, the evidence indicates that Shokin wasn't pursing any investigation at the time he was removed, presumably because Zlochevsky had paid him off. Originally Posted by Tiny

You’ve mentioned this several times

I’d say the act of Biden responding to hunters “d c” phone call at all is an act of bribery

Doesn’t matter who neutered shokin

Always make sure people's quotes from testimony or articles hasn't been changed or misrepresented. It won't fly in court either.

Here is the exchange between Archer and Goldman. The exchange given by this poster has been edited (chopped and rearranged) to promote his position. A position he had to lie about.
The phrase "illusion of access" describes exactly what this is. Archer's testimony repeatedly points out he saw no bribes or Joe Biden helping Hunter's business.

Q Did Hunter Biden ever tell you, "I can get my dad to change U.S. policy"?
A No.
Q Are you aware of Hunter Biden ever asking his dad to change foreign policy?
A No.
Q Are you ever -- were you ever privy to any conversations between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden in which they discussed how --A No.
Q -- Joe Biden would --
A No.
Q -- take official actions on behalf of Hunter Biden?
to his father?
A No
Q So is it fair to say that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access?
A Yes
Q So when you talk about selling the brand --
A Uh-huh.
Q -- it's not about selling access to his father. It's about selling the illusion of access to his father. Is that fair?
A Is that fair? I mean, yeah, that is -- I think that's -- that's almost fair.
Q Almost fair. Why almost fair?
A Because there -- there is -- there are touch points and contact points that I can't deny that happened, but nothing of material was discussed. But I can't go on record saying that there was -- there was communications.
Mr. Goldman. You mean --
Mr. Archer. Yeah, yeah.
Mr. Goldman. -- hello and --
Mr. Archer. Yeah, there were communications.
Q By "touch points," you mean Hunter Biden talked to his dad a lot. Is that fair? Is that right?
A He talked to him every day.
Q He was his son.
A Correct. (content found on @page 116 of testimony)
Q Father and son talked all the time.
A Uh-huh.
Q In 2015, in spring of 2015, Beau Biden died. Is that right?
A That's correct.
Q Did the frequency of interactions between Hunter Biden and his father increase after Beau Biden's death?
A I would say yes.
Q Did Joe Biden regularly check in on his son who's admitted he had issues with --
A Every day.
Q -- drugs and other issues?
A Uh-huh.
Q Yes?
A Yes. Sorry.
Q In the context of those conversations, did you ever witness them discussing the substance of Hunter Biden's business?
A No.
Mr. Goldman. Can we just stop on the Beau point a minute?
Mr. Archer. Uh-huh.
Mr. Goldman. Did you know Beau?
Mr. Archer. I did.
Mr. Goldman. Do you recall when he got -- when his health really started deteriorating?
Mr. Archer. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. What impact did that have on Hunter Biden?
Mr. Archer. He was distraught. Definitely a huge impact. And, obviously, you know, it cascaded into -- into a relapse.
Mr. Goldman. And --
Mr. Archer. Lasted a long time.
Mr. Goldman. That -- that last --
Mr. Archer. Lasted a long time.
Mr. Goldman. Yeah. And so you were still in a business relationship with him during the period when Beau was sick and then after he died, when Hunter relapsed, right?
Mr. Archer. Right.
Mr. Goldman. And what impact could you see that Beau's death had on then Vice President Biden?
Mr. Archer. Yeah. I think absolutely devastated, the same, you know, the same -- very similar effect, obviously, about the relapse. But he was, yeah, devastated.
Mr. Goldman. So he died -- Beau died in the spring of 2015. Do you remember how long he had been really --
Mr. Archer. Sick?
Mr. Goldman. -- sick?
Mr. Archer. It was -- the deterioration was quick at the end.
Mr. Goldman. Yeah.
Mr. Archer. So there was obviously always the notion of that he had gotten this diagnosis, but it was -- he was fairly functional. And then it was -- then it was a very quick, like, you know, you could really see it at the end. So I'm thinking about, like, summer of -- so that was out. We were out to, you know, and like the last time I saw Beau was we had ice cream in South Hampton with the kids. And he was, like, on the way out, and it was, yeah, it was really sad. And, obviously, his dad there was and he was extremely -- it was a very, very difficult time for them.

tho oft reported as such

devon archer never testified that hunter was selling the illusion of access

the phrase "illusion of access" was from dim. rep. goldman and was meant as a smoke screen

devon archer,

after being hit with that phrase, a phrase which did have a hook that was meant to have an unthinking fish swallow, in order to provide a useful sound bite to repeat

and goldman did falsely repeat it

archer, upon reflection denied the phrase

here is the exchange: Here is the actual exchange. It couldn't be more clear. Overall context and punctuation included.
Q So is it fair to say that Hunter Biden was selling the illusion of access?
A Yes
Q So when you talk about selling the brand --
A Uh-huh.
Q -- it's not about selling access to his father. It's about selling the illusion of access to his father. Is that fair?
A Is that fair? I mean, yeah, that is -- I think that's -- that's almost fair.
Q Almost fair. Why almost fair?
[/I]A Because there -- there is -- there are touch points and contact points that I can't deny that happened, but nothing of material was discussed. But I can't go on record saying that there was -- there was communications.
Mr. Goldman. You mean --
Mr. Archer. Yeah, yeah.
Mr. Goldman. -- hello and --
Mr. Archer. Yeah, there were communications.
Q By "touch points," you mean Hunter Biden talked to his dad a lot. Is that fair? Is that right?
A He talked to him every day.
Q He was his son.
(content found on @page 114 of testimony)


"It's not about selling access to his father. It's about selling the illusion of access to his father. Is that fair?" Goldman questioned.

"Is that fair? I mean, yeah, that is – I think that's – that's almost fair," Archer responded.

"Almost fair. Why almost fair?" Goldman probed.

"Because there – there is – there are touch points and contact points that I can't deny that happened, but nothing of material was discussed. But I can't go on record saying that there was – there was communications," Archer replied.

devon went on:Not about this he didn't. This "devon went on" paragraph preceded the "illusion of access". In context, it conveys a different meaning (which is why poster tried to conceal original placement).
Q Does it accord with your recollection that Hunter Biden had no ability to influence what his father would do or say on official trips to Ukraine?
A Yeah, I have -- I have no -- I have no basis to understand what his father and his conversations were about policy in Ukraine. But, as you can see, that seems pretty familiar, that, you know, he can't influence it but take credit for it. I mean, that was -- it's literally the back and forth between the last exhibit and this exhibit. That's what goes on. People send signals and those signals are basically used as currency. And that's kind of how a lot of D.C. operators and foreign tycoons and businessmen work.
Q In other words, it's not that Hunter Biden was influencing U.S. policy. It's that Hunter Biden was falsely giving the Burisma executives the impression that he had any influence over U.S. policy.
A I think that's fair.

"People send signals and those signals are basically used as currency. And that's kind of how a lot of D.C. operators and foreign tycoons and businessmen work," Archer described in questioning.

so there was goldman, himself, coming up with that phrase, fishing for archer to agree to there only being an illusion of access

and archer, after clearing his head, saying no because even though archer never heard a direct quid pro quo....craftiness doesn't work that way Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought