Bill Barr and his October Surprise

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:
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.

A person on the board of a company has no experience in that industry? Just like on virtually every other board of directors out there? No, say it ain't so!
 
The tenuous link between things the Trumpers have to make in order to maintain their whataboutism is getting pathetic.
 
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.

Oh, I absolutely agree. It's amazing to me that people who push the "Biden corruption" narrative don't see the obvious corruption happening right now in Trump's family. I think it's the simple fact that people on the GOP side are much better about getting their narratives, true or false, across than those on the Dem side. I'm surprised that Biden and his campaign hasn't been more vocal on this particular point given the focus on his son and himself.
 
Last I checked, Hunter Biden didn't have to have his security clearance forced through by Daddy so that he could work for Daddy when he would have been declared a security risk in any other circumstance.
 
This is like Watergate but if Nixon had left the tapes in his jacket pocket for dry cleaning except the tapes were just found in a random jacket pocket with "Nixon '76" pin on the lapel so they assumed they had to be Nixon's jacket oh and the tapes also didn't really exist.
Tricky.
 
A person on the board of a company has no experience in that industry? Just like on virtually every other board of directors out there? No, say it ain't so!

Yes, this is indeed common in order to leverage connections and hijack prestige (see Theranos for an example of when it can backfire spectacularly). What I'm saying is that in this case, the close connection to the then VP overseeing that country's political relations is especially problematic. I mean, what would everyone say if Michael Pence (Mike Pence's son) was appointed to the board of some Russian company owned by a corrupt oligarch?
 
Oh, I absolutely agree. It's amazing to me that people who push the "Biden corruption" narrative don't see the obvious corruption happening right now in Trump's family. I think it's the simple fact that people on the GOP side are much better about getting their narratives, true or false, across than those on the Dem side. I'm surprised that Biden and his campaign hasn't been more vocal on this particular point given the focus on his son and himself.

It's entirely possible that, far from those people not seeing the corruption in Trump's family, it's the reason for their pushing the "Biden family corruption" narrative.
 
YES!!! THAT'S IT!!! What a brilliant plan: Travel cross-country to drop off a laptop at a repair shop, don't tell the shop who you are and make sure that the owner has bad eyesight and can't recognize you, and don't ever retrieve the laptop with the expectation that the repair shop will wipe everything from the disk and sell the laptop to someone who lives 3,000 miles from you so that all traces of a secret meeting with a Ukrainian businessman will vanish forever.
Excellent chronicle, except I'd like to add that his cross-country trip was likely aboard a remote-controlled holographic plane under the direction of Dick Cheney.
 
Last edited:
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.

The possible answer is mundane. Burisma was willing to pay Hunter's salary because having a Biden on the board would help turnaround its image and help attract needed investors.
 
The possible answer is mundane. Burisma was willing to pay Hunter's salary because having a Biden on the board would help turnaround its image and help attract needed investors.
Presumably any change he would make to their image would be as a result of a perceived connection to Joe Biden? That feels like almost the definition of conflict of interest. In any case, if these emails pan out, we have Hunter introducing people from Burisma to Joe... so the suggestion is that they were getting more for their money than just reflected glory.
 
Presumably any change he would make to their image would be as a result of a perceived connection to Joe Biden? That feels like almost the definition of conflict of interest.
Oh, is that how it "feels?" What a ******* crock. If trading on one's name constituted a conflict of interest...ever heard the name Trump?
In any case, if these emails pan out, we have Hunter introducing people from Burisma to Joe... so the suggestion is that they were getting more for their money than just reflected glory.
It's been days and all that's been produced is an easily faked screenshot of a single e-mail and every aspect of the story strains credulity beyond the breaking point. In other words, this slander hasn't panned out. It's over except for the dishonest partisans who continue to pretend there was ever a credible story in the first place.
 
Presumably any change he would make to their image would be as a result of a perceived connection to Joe Biden? That feels like almost the definition of conflict of interest. In any case, if these emails pan out, we have Hunter introducing people from Burisma to Joe... so the suggestion is that they were getting more for their money than just reflected glory.
Are you familiar with Hunter Biden's credentials? He's led a flourishing career of his own, he's no Half Scoop.
 
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.

Do you have a clue what Hunter's qualifications actually were? He has a Yale law degree and had a number of years of experience in various positions and companies.

Vox has a good summary and they don't pull punches.

Hunter Biden, the black sheep who got Trump impeached, explained (There is sarcasm there, I believe.)
When his dad became vice president, Hunter left the Amtrak board and instead got involved with a series of investment companies. As detailed by Ben Schreckinger in Politico, a lot of this work seems to have hinged on Hunter and his uncle James Biden sort of hinting around that the family connection to the vice president could help get things done and then not delivering. The Obama administration generally regarded Hunter as a kind of embarrassing family black sheep rather than a real scandal.
That's quite different from Biden getting his son the job.
 
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.
As another poster had suggested... it is not unusual for people to serve on the board of directors for companies they do not have experience in. In fact it is probably the norm. (I guess companies want to have directors with a wide variety of experiences.)

Now, lets consider Hunter Biden's experience, shall we? Before he joined Burisma, he:
- Graduated law school (So, decently educated)
- Became an executive for a financial organization
- Founded multiple businesses, including one that does venture capital and one that does investments/advisory
- Served on the board of Directors of Amtrak (after being appointed to the position by Bush, who was a republican the last time I checked.)

So Biden does appear to have significant qualifications to serve on the board of directors of Barisma.

Now, would he have been hired if he wasn't related to Joe Biden? Maybe, maybe not. I do admit that having someone even remotely related to the presidency would add a little prestige to the company.
Why was Hunter appointed if not to curry favor with the VP, his father? It really doesn't make sense any other way.
Now, would he have been hired if he wasn't related to Joe Biden? Maybe, maybe not. I do admit that having someone even remotely related to the presidency would add a little prestige to the company, which would be more than enough justification to hire him, even if Joe Biden wasn't going to be influenced as a results. (Despite insinuations from the MAGAchuds that he was some unemployed loser living in Joe Biden's basement before he was hired by Barisma, Hunter certainly was more than successful by that point in his career.)
 
Last edited:
Presumably any change he would make to their image would be as a result of a perceived connection to Joe Biden? That feels like almost the definition of conflict of interest. In any case, if these emails pan out, we have Hunter introducing people from Burisma to Joe... so the suggestion is that they were getting more for their money than just reflected glory.
:dl:

You're still going there?

:dl: :dl:
 
If some people hadn't made such a poor effort to launder the information through a fabricated story, there might have been some merit to investigate the content of the emails.

But this story isn't just Fake News, it is Fabricated News.
 
I don't think it is fair to compare Hunter to the Trump kids. Neither Barron nor Tiffany have carreers based off of their father's name, yet.
 
it’s a private company anyway right? Whether or not they’re making bad hiring decisions is entirely up to them. Real question is what did Joe Biden do. And if the best you got is an email that Rudy Giuliani found in a water logged computer he got from a MAGA nut, well, LOL at you for believing that
 

Back
Top Bottom