• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not really, there is no evidence that Joe Biden was involved in any "decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which" Hunter had a financial interest in.

Yes, he did.

Joe Biden had the prosecutor investigating corruption in the company Hunter worked for fired. It was a (legal) conflict of interest, even though Biden was acting in accordance with a strong international consensus that the prosecutor was corrupt and needed to be fired.

If it had been Joe Biden's wife instead of son working for the company, it would have been blatantly illegal (and I'm sure some family lawyer would have prevented her from even accepting the gig in the first place for that reason.)
 
Last edited:
Joe Biden had the prosecutor investigating corruption in the company Hunter worked for fired. It was a (legal) conflict of interest, even though Biden was acting in accordance with a strong international consensus that the prosecutor was corrupt and needed to be fired.

Wasn't the issue that the person in question wasn't doing enough to investigate corruption?
 
Wasn't the issue that the person in question wasn't doing enough to investigate corruption?
Yes.

See my posts upthread.

The issue was that the Ukraine prosecutor was protecting a person who had been convicted in the EU. What was needed was evidence the Ukraine prosecutor was withholding in order to seize his assets in the UK. (Or something like that, I'll go back and find my post with the links.)

IIRC it never had anything to do with the Ukraine investigating Burisma. It definitely had nothing to do with anyone investigating Hunter B.
 
Last edited:
Yes.

See my posts upthread.

The issue was that the Ukraine prosecutor was protecting a person who had been convicted in the EU. What was needed was evidence the Ukraine prosecutor was withholding in order to seize his assets in the UK. (Or something like that, I'll go back and find my post with the links.)

IIRC it never had anything to do with the Ukraine investigating Burisma. It definitely had nothing to do with anyone investigating Hunter B.

The wiki says (I don't have access to the NYT articles they reference, but I think this is accurate):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin

Since 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general had been investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption.[25] In 2014, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings.[26] Hunter Biden was paid $50,000 a month for this role according to the Wall Street Journal.[27] In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts".[16] Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.[25]

While visiting Kiev in December 2015, Joe Biden threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that if he did not fire Shokin, that the US would hold back its $1 billion in loan guarantees. In a later recollection, Biden said, "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."[28][29] Shokin was dismissed by Parliament in late March 2016.

eta: I definitely agree that "It definitely had nothing to do with anyone investigating Hunter B". I'm just saying if it had been Joe Biden's wife instead of his son sitting on the board of Bursima, Joe Biden's involvement with any of it would have been illegal under this law.
 
Last edited:
eta: I definitely agree that "It definitely had nothing to do with anyone investigating Hunter B". I'm just saying if it had been Joe Biden's wife instead of his son sitting on the board of Bursima, Joe Biden's involvement with any of it would have been illegal under this law.

Ok...my bad...Thanks for the clarification. And thanks for reposting that snippet.
 
And from my link, this was not entirely on his merits either. Joe was an influential Congressman.

Regardless of whether his first job was merit based or not, he did get the experience of being an Executive Vice President.

But then starts the Catch-22. How many jobs did he have to hold down that had him in a high power position before he's qualified? He help start and tun a lobbying company, two investment companies, and a Consulting company. Is starting and running four companies not enough to say you are qualified to be on a Board of Directors? How about spending three years as a director of a $3.4 Billion dollar company? What would he need to do before anything he does is just as seen as him getting it because of his father.

From post 1390 quoting the right leaning National Review:

Which as you noted was denied and no action was ever taken, so the evidence of wrong doing is pretty weak.

Were you aware that Devon Archer, who was one of Hunter's partners in BHR, was asked to be a Director on Burisma before Hunter? That it seems it was his idea to bring Hunter on board to help with International Relations and trying to improve their PR? It wasn't like they just rang him out of the blue and asked him to be on the Board.
 
The wiki says (I don't have access to the NYT articles they reference, but I think this is accurate):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin



eta: I definitely agree that "It definitely had nothing to do with anyone investigating Hunter B". I'm just saying if it had been Joe Biden's wife instead of his son sitting on the board of Bursima, Joe Biden's involvement with any of it would have been illegal under this law.

I disagree that it would have been illegal. Had Burisma been Shokin's one and only case you might have a point, but in reality it wasn't, it was one case among many that he was failing to do his job on. Biden's pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin had nothing to do with that case, other that it was one of many that Shokin wasn't working on when he should have been. There is no financial link in any way between Biden pushing US policy here, and his son's work. If anything, his doing so endangered his son's work because it meant a new prosecutor who restarted the case and did the job Shokin wasn't.

You are trying to play 6 degrees here with a law that is about having direct connections, not ones you have to almost wade through a maze to find.
 
Were you aware that Devon Archer, who was one of Hunter's partners in BHR, was asked to be a Director on Burisma before Hunter? That it seems it was his idea to bring Hunter on board to help with International Relations and trying to improve their PR? It wasn't like they just rang him out of the blue and asked him to be on the Board.

What was Hunter's expertise in international relations and PR?

That makes it sound even more like they wanted his last name, primarily.
 
What was Hunter's expertise in international relations and PR?

That makes it sound even more like they wanted his last name, primarily.

He had three years with the United States Department of Commerce, 6 years running a lobbying company, and was a partner in a consulting company. He was officially hired to help with developing "corporate governance best practices."
 
I disagree that it would have been illegal. Had Burisma been Shokin's one and only case you might have a point, but in reality it wasn't, it was one case among many that he was failing to do his job on. Biden's pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin had nothing to do with that case, other that it was one of many that Shokin wasn't working on when he should have been. There is no financial link in any way between Biden pushing US policy here, and his son's work. If anything, his doing so endangered his son's work because it meant a new prosecutor who restarted the case and did the job Shokin wasn't.

You are trying to play 6 degrees here with a law that is about having direct connections, not ones you have to almost wade through a maze to find.

You don't have to have impure motives to be penalized for conflicts of interest.

If Biden's wife had a significant financial interest in Burisima, Biden would have been prohibited from using his office to fire the guy investigating it for corruption, according to the law.

This isn't 6 degrees apart.

If Mike Pence's wife sits on the board of Walmart, and the Arkansas AG is investigating (among all the other other things the Arkansas AG is investigating) Walmart engaging in money laundering, Mike Pence has a legal conflict of interest if he wants to get the Arkansas AG fired for whatever good reason he might have.
 
You don't have to have impure motives to be penalized for conflicts of interest.

If Biden's wife had a significant financial interest in Burisima, Biden would have been prohibited from using his office to fire the guy investigating it for corruption, according to the law.

This isn't 6 degrees apart.

If Mike Pence's wife sits on the board of Walmart, and the Arkansas AG is investigating (among all the other other things the Arkansas AG is investigating) Walmart engaging in money laundering, Mike Pence has a legal conflict of interest if he wants to get the Arkansas AG fired for whatever good reason he might have.

Here's your problem. He got fired because he WASN'T investigating it, along with a bunch of other investigations he was failing to do.
 
Here's your problem. He got fired because he WASN'T investigating it, along with a bunch of other investigations he was failing to do.

It's still a conflict of interest. (He wasn't investigating it fast enough/in the right way.)
Conflict of interest law is intentionally silent on judging motive because of arguments like these. It's always a simple "If there is a financial interest in ANY way, stay out" sort of thing.

And Obama/Biden officials and advisers didn't like a lot of Hunter's international work for this reason.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign

Hunter’s meeting with Li and his relationship with BHR attracted little attention at the time, but some of Biden’s advisers were worried that Hunter, by meeting with a business associate during his father’s visit, would expose the Vice-President to criticism. The former senior White House aide told me that Hunter’s behavior invited questions about whether he “was leveraging access for his benefit, which just wasn’t done in that White House. Optics really mattered, and that seemed to be cutting it pretty close, even if nothing nefarious was going on.” When I asked members of Biden’s staff whether they discussed their concerns with the Vice-President, several of them said that they had been too intimidated to do so

Several former officials in the Obama Administration and at the State Department insisted that Hunter’s role at Burisma had no effect on his father’s policies in Ukraine, but said that, nevertheless, Hunter should not have taken the board seat. As the former senior White House aide put it, there was a perception that “Hunter was on the loose, potentially undermining his father’s message.” The same aide said that Hunter should have recognized that at least some of his foreign business partners were motivated to work with him because they wanted “to be able to say that they are affiliated with Biden.” A former business associate said, “The appearance of a conflict of interest is good enough, at this level of politics, to keep you from doing things like that.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...adff70-dfd9-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html
Inside the vice president’s office, there was discussion about whether Hunter’s position on the board would be perceived as a conflict of interest, according to several former aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Bringing aboard a son of the U.S. vice president was part of a broad effort by Burisma to burnish its credentials that had started before the 2014 uprising.

(I realize the above is probably just the author's opinion, but still...)

“Adding these people with these fancy names to the board made Burisma, [which] got licenses to extract gas in Ukraine through very suspicious means, look like a Western, legitimate company,” said Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center. She described such “whitewashing” as a common tactic for tycoons and officials who are looking to legitimize assets of questionable origin.

One of his investment company partners, Devon Archer, had just joined the board of Burisma. Soon, Hunter Biden received his own invitation.

But another partner in their investment firm raised serious concerns.

Chris Heinz, Kerry’s stepson, told Archer that joining Burisma was a bad idea, according to a spokesman for Heinz. Heinz was concerned about reports of corruption in Ukraine, geopolitical risks and general questions about appearance.

Mr. Heinz strongly warned Mr. Archer that working with Burisma was unacceptable. Mr. Archer stated that he and Hunter Biden intended to pursue the opportunity as individuals, not as part of the firm,” Heinz spokesman Chris Bastardi told The Post.

The decision fractured the firm..

The lack of judgment in this matter was a major catalyst for Mr. Heinz ending his business relationships with Mr. Archer and Mr. Biden,” Bastardi said, adding that Heinz and his investment firm were never involved with Burisma.
 
Last edited:
But if HB *was* superbly qualified, would that necessarily render moot any concerns of possible influence peddling? I doubt it.

The thing is, no matter which going concern he might find himself on the board of, the same pesky questions could be raised by those who want to do so. The only way to completely avoid that is to prohibit relatives from taking on any position--anywhere on Earth--that could remotely invite corruption of/by the related US official.

But is that fair? Can we not give the benefit of some trust in integrity, unless given reason to think otherwise? Are there not mechanisms or means of oversight in place to guard against corruption?

In this case I have seen no reason to consider HB's position as warranting the invocation of corruption. Nor do I see his father's role in ousting a corrupt Ukranian prosecutor as being tied to Hunter's situation.
The experience mentioned above shows my premise was wrong.

The choice of being on ther board of Burisma may still have been a mistake, as Hunter has said.
 
It's still a conflict of interest. (He wasn't investigating it fast enough/in the right way.)
Conflict of interest law is intentionally silent on judging motive because of arguments like these. It's always a simple "If there is a financial interest in ANY way, stay out" sort of thing.

And Obama/Biden officials and advisers didn't like a lot of Hunter's international work for this reason.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign





https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...adff70-dfd9-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html




(I realize the above is probably just the author's opinion, but still...)

The executive branch is giving opinions on what a specific citizen who doesn't work for them should or should not do. That is also not great.
 
I disagree that it would have been illegal. Had Burisma been Shokin's one and only case you might have a point, but in reality it wasn't, it was one case among many that he was failing to do his job on. Biden's pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin had nothing to do with that case, other that it was one of many that Shokin wasn't working on when he should have been.

And again: Joe Biden's actions would hurt Hunter's employer. Is that supposed to be some nth-dimensional chess move by him? Because it sounds like Biden was putting principle and foreign policy over personal concerns, there. The Republicans are just twisting reality.
 
Hmmm .... I wonder if the attempts to deflect the conversation from Trump's actions to the Bidens will be successful? :-)
 
This is from 2014:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gas-company-is-a-problem-for-u-s-soft-power/







It's a country where there had just been a coup, and his dad oversaw foreign policy there.

It's extremely unseemly. Not illegal, just....uuuhg.


In other words, he should turn down jobs because of who his daddy is.

Okay, I can see that. I'm surprised people don't just say so, rather than pussyfoot around it.

It does sort of raise the question as to what jobs he could take without crossing such a line. I suppose burger flipping would be all right, but any position with any major corporation is liable to fly afoul of such considerations of propriety.

Maybe he should have just taken a sabbatical from employment while his dad was in office?

Or maybe the fact that the company wasn't being investigated when he went to work there, and his daddy was actively involved in trying to rectify the circumstances which had led to it not being investigated before Hunter went to work there should be taken into account.

If someone is really worried about the appearance (not to mention the actual existence) of impropriety and nepotism there are far better examples of the real thing much closer to home. This is nothing but badly ginned-up attempts at whataboutism to be thrown to the Trumpista True Believers.
 
Absolutely it is Trump's distraction. And I don't choose to play into it.

Hmmm .... I wonder if the attempts to deflect the conversation from Trump's actions to the Bidens will be successful? :-)

This.

The very fact that we’re back and forth about Hunter Biden shows how effective Trump’s strategy is. Even arguments showing Hunter Biden’s actions were not corrupt can cement a link between Hunter Biden and corruption in people’s minds.

It’s insidious. The alternative is to simply not get sucked into a discussion, in which case the rejoinder will be: “What are you afraid of?” When Schumer rightfully rejects Hunter Biden as an inquiry witness, I guarantee you that’s what the Republicans are primed to say, introducing doubt as the Schumer's motives.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Like I said, insidious.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom