The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,975
The core problem is that Hunter Biden was put on the board of a Ukranian gas company despite having no experience in the Ukraine or the gas industry. Despite having just been discharged from the Navy Reserve for cocaine use. This happened at a time when his father was Vice President and specifically handling Ukraine relations.
That problematic appointment creates a ripe environment for speculation. Why was Hunter appointed if not to curry favor with the VP, his father? It really doesn't make sense any other way. A relatively reasonable person can make inferences that lead them to concluding that there was at least some motive for corruption on Burisma's part. Which, given the chain of events, a somewhat-less-but-still-reasonable interpretation is that there indeed was some corruption. I personally don't think there was, quite the opposite, in fact. I think there's plenty of evidence to show that Biden and the rest of the Western world wanted the prosecutor out because he wasn't pursuing obvious corruption, including that of Burisma.
But it's that problematic confluence of established facts that raises the question in the first place: Why was Hunter Biden on a board of company he had no experience with in a country he had no experience with? Because his father was in charge of Ukraine policy - there simply is no other answer.
What Hunter did or didn't do is the one side of the issue, and it is the next-to-irrelevant one: we are not voting for Hunter for President.
What voter should wonder is what Joe Biden did, and if what he did was according to the interests of the US and in accordance with State Department policy. Or if he put pressure to have US policy change to help his son's company.
Of course, we don't have to even ask these questions in the case of Ivanka and Jared, because we all know the answer.
Last edited:
