2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[Typical Lax Dad]

By the way...here's the exchange with Biden and a PBS reporter:

WOODRUFF: But, if you had known (about Hunter getting that board seat), would you have said, don't, or would you have believed — said, this (getting a fat corporate board seat) is wrong?

BIDEN: No, it's not wrong.


There you go. He's been in corrupt DC for so freaking long, he doesn't recognize corruption when he sees it....unless, of course, it's "someone else's" corruption.

And again, I don't believe for a second Joe Biden didn't know.

Fight to help the people of Ukraine get rid of corruption.....and then replace the old corruption with new corruption. Sweet, right? I'm sure the Ukrainian people are just thrilled.

And Biden thinks it's cool because "it's not illegal"

Joe can F right off.

What is corruption in this case? When I was just starting out in finance , we had a young German ex-pat work with us. His father was friends with our German Chairman. We never considered him being there because of some corrupt activities. He had advantages but not sure the activity was "corrupt".

Edit: This is what I considered corruption....dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.

But political corruption covers nepotism and cronyism. If Joe was supporting this activity, it falls under political corruption.

[njbill]

And you know that how? And even if true, how is that corruption?

Yes, not necessarily 'corrupt' but TLD's point was about judgment and the choice to simply go along with what seems obvious to anyone using their noggin, that Hunter got his job because his papa was VP, a political big wig.

Did Joe do anything for Burisma?
According to lots of efforts to find such, yet no evidence, probably not.

Did anyone actually treat Burisma differently because of a desire to please the VP?
Again, no evidence of such.

So...it's understandable that Joe would be miffed at suggestions otherwise.
But can he really not see why it was an unseemly choice?

This is a valid critique and he's gonna get more of it.
My wife reacted to Hunter's promise to get off all boards if his dad wins the general with a "what did he just say? why the heck doesn't he get off now, post haste, period?"

I don’t quarrel, and have never quarreled, with the proposition that Hunter used poor judgment. He has (very belatedly) acknowledged that. And I don’t quarrel with the conclusion that Hunter got the job because Joe was VP. Blame Hunter, of course, but I need to see a lot more evidence before I blame Joe.

I don’t think Hunter needs to get off any boards unless or until his dad wins the election. Why should he do that?

[njbill]

By the way...here's the exchange with Biden and a PBS reporter:

WOODRUFF: But, if you had known (about Hunter getting that board seat), would you have said, don't, or would you have believed — said, this (getting a fat corporate board seat) is wrong?

BIDEN: No, it's not wrong.


There you go. He's been in corrupt DC for so freaking long, he doesn't recognize corruption when he sees it....unless, of course, it's "someone else's" corruption.

And again, I don't believe for a second Joe Biden didn't know.

Fight to help the people of Ukraine get rid of corruption.....and then replace the old corruption with new corruption. Sweet, right? I'm sure the Ukrainian people are just thrilled.

And Biden thinks it's cool because "it's not illegal"

Joe can F right off.

Joe is defending his son, pure and simple.

Joe Biden is a lot of things, but he is not corrupt. Period. End of story. Please take that nonsense somewhere else.

[njbill]

But political corruption covers nepotism and cronyism. If Joe was supporting this activity, it falls under political corruption.

If Joe got him the job, I would agree, but there is no evidence of that. If you are saying he was “supporting the activity“ by not forcing his son to resign, I don’t agree. He doesn’t control his adult son.

[a fan]

Well, we certainly have a very different view of that voter. Why was he even at that event? He obviously has no interest in Biden’s candidacy? He wasn’t legitimately considering whether to caucus for him. He very well could have been a plant. Honest man? I better hold my wallet.

I believe he was an honest voter, and not a plant, because he was elderly, and was wholly inarticulate. That, and before he addressed Biden, he called Trump spineless. If he's a plant, bravo. Great acting job. Fooled me.

Now add in that the man didn't lie.....

Putting that aside, you are assuming a lot of things that haven’t been shown to be true, most especially whatever conversations Joe had with Hunter. I entirely reject the proposition that Joe had the ability to “direct” Hunter to do anything. Hunter was about 45 years old. My daughter is 27. There is no way on earth that I can tell her what to do. If I try, she does the opposite. And then I should be blamed? No f’ing way.

if my daughter tried this? I"d tell her I'd make two phone calls and kill the job. Joe could do that in a nanosecond, and for heaven's sake, you understand that.

Why was Hunter given the "job" (snicker) in the first place? If Burisma finds out Joe is none too happy with the job offer? Poof. Job offer is gone.

You're straining to make it sound like this was a real job, and Burisma wanted real legal work out of Hunter. You're far, far smarter than that.

Again, show me hard evidence of what Joe did, not mere speculation.

I just did in the above post. Joe thinks there was nothing wrong with the job as of 2019. Sorry, that's an indefensible position.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'd like to hear Joe at least say now something like: "I agree with my son, Hunter, who I love dearly, that it was a mistake for him to accept that position with Burisma during a period in which there was any chance that doing so could be seen as related to my political influence. We both wish we had recognized that issue and avoided it altogether. We're sorry we didn't."

Reporter, "well sir, why didn't you recognize the conflict?". Joe, "there was no actual conflict, no actions I ever took or considered taking to benefit my son or the company paying him, however what we were blind to was the perception it may have given to others, especially in Ukraine, that there was any possibility that I could be bought. That could well have been detrimental to our campaign against corruption in Ukraine. And that was a serious mistake in my judgment, as well as Hunter's".

Own it.

Done and over with. On to the White House.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I'd like to hear Joe at least say now something like: "I agree with my son, Hunter, who I love dearly, that it was a mistake for him to accept that position with Burisma during a period in which there was any chance that doing so could be seen as related to my political influence. We both wish we had recognized that issue and avoided it altogether. We're sorry we didn't."

Reporter, "well sir, why didn't you recognize the conflict?". Joe, "there was no actual conflict, no actions I ever took or considered taking to benefit my son or the company paying him, however what we were blind to was the perception it may have given to others, especially in Ukraine, that there was any possibility that I could be bought. That could well have been detrimental to our campaign against corruption in Ukraine. And that was a serious mistake in my judgment, as well as Hunter's".

Own it.

Done and over with. On to the White House.

All things Hunter Biden: https://www.businessinsider.com/hunter- ... dealings-8

[MDlaxfan76]

And you know that how? And even if true, how is that corruption?

Yes, not necessarily 'corrupt' but TLD's point was about judgment and the choice to simply go along with what seems obvious to anyone using their noggin, that Hunter got his job because his papa was VP, a political big wig.

Did Joe do anything for Burisma?
According to lots of efforts to find such, yet no evidence, probably not.

Did anyone actually treat Burisma differently because of a desire to please the VP?
Again, no evidence of such.

So...it's understandable that Joe would be miffed at suggestions otherwise.
But can he really not see why it was an unseemly choice?

This is a valid critique and he's gonna get more of it.
My wife reacted to Hunter's promise to get off all boards if his dad wins the general with a "what did he just say? why the heck doesn't he get off now, post haste, period?"

I don’t quarrel, and have never quarreled, with the proposition that Hunter used poor judgment. He has (very belatedly) acknowledged that. And I don’t quarrel with the conclusion that Hunter got the job because Joe was VP. Blame Hunter, of course, but I need to see a lot more evidence before I blame Joe.

I don’t think Hunter needs to get off any boards unless or until his dad wins the election. Why should he do that?

Because of the perception. Period.

If Joe loses and is no longer in a possible position to wield major political influence, have at it Hunter.

Is this standard fair in the era of outright corruption of Trump? Nope.
But want to beat Trump like a drum?
Need to not have this sort of perception issue.
It was a serious problem for HRC that she could not successfully attack on this front, needed to defend instead.

That may mean Mayor Pete or Mayor Bloomberg...

[a fan]

Joe is defending his son, pure and simple.

Joe Biden is a lot of things, but he is not corrupt. Period. End of story. Please take that nonsense somewhere else.

Hunter Biden takes a fake high paying job in Ukraine while Daddy is Vice President of the United States, and is fighting an internationally publicized battle against corruption in the Ukraine....and you're telling me that's not corrupt?

We have very, very different views on what corruption is, I suppose.

And let's not forget........ it's easy to avoid illegal corruption when your family is writing the laws defining corruption. Make me King of America for a day. I'd make what Hunter, Kushner, and Ivanka are doing felonies with mandatory minimums.

I'm sick of lowering the bar for our nation's leaders, year after year after year.

[a fan]

And I'd like to add, njbill.....I love your posts, my man. But boy, we're on different planets when it comes to Biden.

Which is fine, and is the point of the forum. Cheers.

[jhu72]

Either Joe used influence to get his kid a job he didn’t deserve or Hunter hates his dad and was willing to damage Joe’s aspirations by getting overpaid at a Ukrainian petro company own by a corrupt oligarch.

Those are not the only two options, of course. Another one is that Hunter was contacted for the position without any involvement of Joe.

Again, what is the evidence Joe used his influence to get Hunter the job? If there is evidence, I would like to see it. But this story has been circulating for years and no one has come up with any evidence in that regard.

I would bet on this. The organization looking to buy influence I would think almost always make the approach. Bad optics, perhaps more, but no evidence at this time, as you say. If you are going to go after Hunter Biden, lets be fair and go after the 20-30% (my guestimate) of the American white collar workforce that either sells themselves based on who they know or based on bringing more to the job than what they know. Let's go after every salesman who takes a new job in the same industry and brings their employer's contact / customer list with them (we would put 99% of all salesmen in jail). Most military officers who work a program or project and take a job in the related industry. They always trade on the General or Colonel they know who is still working the program or project. There are so many "bad optics, perhaps more situations" in the world.

Is it a problem? Yes, but lets not pretend it is only politicians or Hunter Biden.

[old salt]

It was impossible to do business in Ukraine without getting dirty in the process. Especially in the energy sector.
There is no such thing as an innocent conflict of interest, when all the money is dirty.
If you hammer the Trump's for their Russian dealings, you can't turn a blind eye to the Bidens' dealings in Ukraine.
Joe should be begging for investigations, govt & media, to clear his family name,
otherwise -- it's about to get a lot messier. They're even talking about it on NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/78504630 ... alist-says

[njbill]

Well, we certainly have a very different view of that voter. Why was he even at that event? He obviously has no interest in Biden’s candidacy? He wasn’t legitimately considering whether to caucus for him. He very well could have been a plant. Honest man? I better hold my wallet.

I believe he was an honest voter, and not a plant, because he was elderly, and was wholly inarticulate. That, and before he addressed Biden, he called Trump spineless. If he's a plant, bravo. Great acting job. Fooled me.

Now add in that the man didn't lie.....

Putting that aside, you are assuming a lot of things that haven’t been shown to be true, most especially whatever conversations Joe had with Hunter. I entirely reject the proposition that Joe had the ability to “direct” Hunter to do anything. Hunter was about 45 years old. My daughter is 27. There is no way on earth that I can tell her what to do. If I try, she does the opposite. And then I should be blamed? No f’ing way.

if my daughter tried this? I"d tell her I'd make two phone calls and kill the job. Joe could do that in a nanosecond, and for heaven's sake, you understand that.I assume you are being glib and don't mean that literally. But if you did: (a) it would be a gross intrusion into your daughter's life; and (b) you'd run the risk of alienating her for a long time. The correct parental response to an adult child is to discuss the issue with the child, alert them to issues and consequences they might not be considering, and offer suggestions, but take steps against her wishes to get her fired from her job? Yikes, and double yikes. Not to get too personal (and please don't do a Melania on me), but I understand your daughter is quite young. I can virtually assure you that you will tread much more carefully in her life when she is an adult.

Why was Hunter given the "job" (snicker) in the first place? Of course he got the job because his dad was VP. I have conceded that repeatedly.If Burisma finds out Joe is none too happy with the job offer? Poof. Job offer is gone. Maybe. Maybe not.
Speculation. He had the job for several years while Joe was VP and Burisma evidently didn't get the access everyone is concerned about. Yet the job didn't go "poof."

You're straining to make it sound like this was a real job, and Burisma wanted real legal work out of Hunter. You are setting up a straw man. I never said any such thing. Hunter was on the board. Though he's a lawyer, he wasn't acting as legal counsel for Burisma. Where did you get that? Hunter isn't licensed in Ukraine. He couldn't advise them on matters of Ukrainian law. And no one says he was advising them on U.S. law. (I'm not aware Burisma even had any issues involving U.S. law.) Lots of outside directors are lawyers, but don't do legal work for the corporation. Hunter was hired by Burisma in an attempt to clean up their image and to help them institute good governance practices. Are there 1000 other people who were more qualified to do that? Of course.
But to the meat of this -- sure, Burisma hoped to get access by hiring Hunter. But there is no evidence they did. That is the fundamental and most critically important point you are ignoring in trying to tar and feather Joe. Also, I presume Burisma wanted Hunter to provide advice on the American political landscape. Nothing, per se, wrong with that.You're far, far smarter than that.

Again, show me hard evidence of what Joe did, not mere speculation.

I just did in the above post. Joe thinks there was nothing wrong with the job as of 2019. Sorry, that's an indefensible position.So your only hard evidence is what Joe said to Judy Woodruff? Huh? Not particularly robust or compelling. As I said, Joe was not going to criticize his son on TV. Criticize that it you like (and to be fair to you, that isn't a wholly unreasonable position), but that is some pretty thin gruel to hang your hat on. Another thing: you seem to be overlooking the human dimension here. Joe has lost two children. Hunter is his sole surviving son. Hunter has not handled the tragedies of losing his mother and two siblings at all well. He has made a lot of bad decisions. I am going to cut Joe a little slack if he chooses not to publicly come down on his son.

[njbill]

I'd like to hear Joe at least say now something like: "I agree with my son, Hunter, who I love dearly, that it was a mistake for him to accept that position with Burisma during a period in which there was any chance that doing so could be seen as related to my political influence. We both wish we had recognized that issue and avoided it altogether. We're sorry we didn't."

Reporter, "well sir, why didn't you recognize the conflict?". Joe, "there was no actual conflict, no actions I ever took or considered taking to benefit my son or the company paying him, however what we were blind to was the perception it may have given to others, especially in Ukraine, that there was any possibility that I could be bought. That could well have been detrimental to our campaign against corruption in Ukraine. And that was a serious mistake in my judgment, as well as Hunter's".

Own it.

Done and over with. On to the White House.

Very well said. Very good advice. I agree.

[jhu72]

To set the Hunter Biden record straight, according to Polina Ivanova, Maria Tsvetkova, Ilya Zhegulev and Luke Baker of Reuters:

"Interviews with more than a dozen people, including executives and former prosecutors in Ukraine, paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues, corporate finance and strategy during a five-year term on the board, which ended in April of this year." (April 2019)

"Hunter Biden never visited Ukraine for company business during that time, according to three of the people." (He worked remotely)

"They also said that his presence on the board didn’t protect the company from its most serious challenge: a series of criminal investigations launched by Ukrainian authorities against its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, a multimillionaire former minister of ecology and natural resources. The allegations concern tax violations, money-laundering and licences given to Burisma during the period where Zlochevsky was a minister."

In a public statement on Oct 13, his (Hunter Biden) lawyer George Mesires said: “Despite extensive scrutiny, at no time has any law enforcement agency, either domestic or foreign, alleged that Hunter engaged in wrongdoing at any point during his five-year term.”


*JHU72's notes - the amounts of money Hunter Biden made are not known. A number of $50,000 per month is widely circulated but is traced back to a right wing blog based on a calculation, a single payment assumed but not known to have been made to Hunter then being assumed to be recurring -- the actual dollars are not known.

It is also interesting that given his "duties", I see nothing that would necessarily require a deep knowledge of the gas and oil industry.

[jhu72]

It was impossible to do business in Ukraine without getting dirty in the process. Especially in the energy sector.
There is no such thing as an innocent conflict of interest, when all the money is dirty.
If you hammer the Trump's for their Russian dealings, you can't turn a blind eye to the Bidens' dealings in Ukraine.
Joe should be begging for investigations, govt & media, to clear his family name,
otherwise -- it's about to get a lot messier. They're even talking about it on NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/05/78504630 ... alist-says

Perhaps, but the two issues are not coupled, which is what Trump and company want to do.

[njbill]

And you know that how? And even if true, how is that corruption?

Yes, not necessarily 'corrupt' but TLD's point was about judgment and the choice to simply go along with what seems obvious to anyone using their noggin, that Hunter got his job because his papa was VP, a political big wig.

Did Joe do anything for Burisma?
According to lots of efforts to find such, yet no evidence, probably not.

Did anyone actually treat Burisma differently because of a desire to please the VP?
Again, no evidence of such.

So...it's understandable that Joe would be miffed at suggestions otherwise.
But can he really not see why it was an unseemly choice?

This is a valid critique and he's gonna get more of it.
My wife reacted to Hunter's promise to get off all boards if his dad wins the general with a "what did he just say? why the heck doesn't he get off now, post haste, period?"

I don’t quarrel, and have never quarreled, with the proposition that Hunter used poor judgment. He has (very belatedly) acknowledged that. And I don’t quarrel with the conclusion that Hunter got the job because Joe was VP. Blame Hunter, of course, but I need to see a lot more evidence before I blame Joe.

I don’t think Hunter needs to get off any boards unless or until his dad wins the election. Why should he do that?

Because of the perception. Period.

If Joe loses and is no longer in a possible position to wield major political influence, have at it Hunter.

Is this standard fair in the era of outright corruption of Trump? Nope.
But want to beat Trump like a drum?
Need to not have this sort of perception issue.
It was a serious problem for HRC that she could not successfully attack on this front, needed to defend instead.

That may mean Mayor Pete or Mayor Bloomberg...

I see it differently. Joe can't do anything for any of Hunter's companies unless or until he becomes president. Are you saying the spouse and children (should this include siblings, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, cousins?) of any candidate for president must resign from all boards from the moment the candidate announces? I think that is too broad. I don't think a "perception problem" develops until the candidate wins the election.

I see your point about Hillary and agree she didn't handle it particularly well, but think her situation was somewhat different. It was the perception that countries, etc. gave money to the Clinton foundation in order to curry favor with her if she became president (putting aside donations while she was SOS). Once Joe is president and Hunter is off the boards, why would Joe do anything to benefit the former companies? Because they paid Hunter directors' fees in the past? I think that connection is rather attenuated. But if country x gave big bucks to the Foundation, they might reasonably expect Hills could do something (aid, policy, other support) to help out as part of her general foreign policy initiatives. I see that as a bit different though concededly somewhat analogous.

[njbill]

And I'd like to add, njbill.....I love your posts, my man. But boy, we're on different planets when it comes to Biden.

Which is fine, and is the point of the forum. Cheers.

Thanks. And ditto. But, yes, one of us is from Mars and the other from Venus on this one. Oh, wait, that didn't come out right.

[njbill]

I have said previously on this forum that I am supporting Biden because I think he has the best chance of beating Trump, which to me is reason 1 . . . reason infinity. If that changes -- if someone else comes to have a better chance -- I'll drop Joe like a hot potato.

I live in South Jersey, in the Phila. media market which covers Delaware politics. So I have seen coverage of Joe for many, many years, well before his 2008 presidential run and his time as VP. He is not the brightest bulb. He is not particularly articulate. He is gaffe prone (is he ever), but he is an honest and honorable guy with a good heart who is on the right side (for me) on most of the issues.

When his son Beau was dying and Hunter (unconscionably) began cozying up to Beau's wife, Joe was ripped apart. He held it together, both privately and publicly, pretty darn well, but it all took a real toll on him. Hunter took the Burisma job in April 2014. Beau died in May 2015 (he'd been diagnosed with brain cancer two years before). Of course Joe would never say (or probably even think) this, but Beau was the shining star of the family; Hunter was the black sheep. Was Joe not focusing as much on Hunter/Burisma as he might have under normal circumstances? Was he reluctant to go too hard on the sole surviving (ne'er-do-well) child of his first marriage? Yeah, maybe. OK, it's not an excuse, but to me it's sure a pretty understandable explanation.

[a fan]

I assume you are being glib and don't mean that literally. But if you did: (a) it would be a gross intrusion into your daughter's life; and (b) you'd run the risk of alienating her for a long time. The correct parental response to an adult child is to discuss the issue with the child, alert them to issues and consequences they might not be considering, and offer suggestions, but take steps against her wishes to get her fired from her job? Yikes, and double yikes. Not to get too personal (and please don't do a Melania on me), but I understand your daughter is quite young. I can virtually assure you that you will tread much more carefully in her life when she is an adult.

Being somewhat glib, as I don't work for the Federal government.

I told this story a few months ago when we were discussing governmental conflicts of interest. Maybe this will help you understand where I'm coming from on this subject:

One of my favorite conflict of interest stories involves my aunt. She worked for the Dept. of Energy as a lawyer for her entire career. Over Xmas one year, I lazily asked her if she knew of any grants were available from the DoE for our nearly pollution free brewery. She angrily told me that I could look at the DoE website, and told me, in so many words, to never put her in a position like that again. Left the table that night with a whole new respect for that woman.

She held a Philosophy degree from U Chicago, JD from Georgetown....could've worked anywhere, but heard Kennedy's call to serve her country.

THAT is how I want every man and woman who works for our government to think and act. Act with the understanding that she has a covenant with the American taxpayers----that she serves them, and no one else.

Joe Biden fell short of my aunt's standard. Same goes for Trump. Same went for Hillary and her stupid and blatantly gross "pay-for-access to the Secretary of State" Clinton Foundation.


Want another example? My wife worked for the State government until recently in upper management.

I own a fairly large meeting space that we sell for corporate events, birthdays, etc. It would have been perfectly legal for her to steer meetings to my place of business, so long as it met their pricing requirements. But would I ever let that happen? Hell, no. That's a conflict of interest, and an affront to my fellow taxpayers.

Savvy? Legal does not mean ethical. And the mere APPEARANCE of a conflict is not ok.

My Dad worked for the Dept. of Interior his entire career. Had the same ironclad ethics my aunt did. Won't bore you with details....but this is where I get my idea surrounding ethical Government service from.......