You hadn't previously answered my question because I hadn't posed it before my last post. It was a new question based on a hypothetical set of facts. I wanted to know if that would change your view. Clearly it doesn't, which is fine. But it at least sounds like you have answered my base question, which has been what did Joe do wrong. Your answer is he didn't recuse himself from Ukraine issues. I'll get into this in more detail below, but I think a Ukraine-wide recusal is too broad. Recuse as to Burisma-related issues? Yes, I agree. Maybe he did. Or maybe there were no Burisma issues that came to his desk. I'm not clear what's in the public record on those two points, but I'm not aware that Joe acted on anything related to Burisma, with the possible exception of the prosecutor announcement (also discussed below).a fan wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 2:19 pmAsked and answered. You're acting like we need to look out for Joe Biden's interest, and I don't know why. I don't care about Joe Biden's interests. What I care about is America's interests. Joe is a public servant, not British Royalty.
So to directly answer your question again, all Joe needs to do is put out a simple press release that states: because of my son's job in Ukraine, I will not handle any Federal government business pertaining to Ukraine.
Hunter gets to keep his silly job, and America's interests are looking after by anyone in our government not named Joe Biden.
How is it that you don't see this solves all problems?
You say: "You're acting like we need to look out for Joe Biden's interest." Not sure what you are basing that on, but it doesn't accurately reflect my views. I am simply responding to what I view to be unfair criticism of Biden. That seems different to me than looking out for his interests, but perhaps that's just a semantic quibble.
So, if Joe puts out your press release, you are fine with Joe/Hunter/Burisma? That "solves all problems?" Somehow I suspect your criticism goes beyond that, but I won't speak for you. You tell me.
Your suggestion that Joe should have recused himself from everything in the Ukraine is too broad. That isn't how conflict of interest rules work. I can't think of any situation where such rules would be so broadly applied. Recuse from anything to do with Burisma, yes, (and maybe he did), but the whole country? No. That's unreasonable, unrealistic, and just wrong. If a president's father or son or brother is on the board of BP, the president has to recuse himself from all matters relating to the UK? What about if the relative is on the board of a U.S. company? Does the president have to recuse himself from all U.S. issues? Of course not. That's silly. The recusal is limited to matters relating to the company, not the entire country in which the company operates.
The closer question concerns Joe's announcement about firing the Ukrainian prosecutor since the prosecutor evidently was, or was supposed to be, looking into Burisma. Joe didn't make that decision; he was the messenger. The decision was made by the administration and our Western allies. Maybe Joe was involved in the decision (I don't know if he was or wasn't). If he was, he probably should have recused himself. In retrospect, might it have been better if someone else announced the decision? Probably, but that's a rather small point.
So why didn't this Joe/Hunter/Burisma stuff hit the fan until relatively recently? If it was such a big deal, why didn't someone bring it up between 2014 and 2018? Where was Fox News? Stories like this, whether or not there is merit, are mother's milk to them. It didn't come up because it wasn't a big deal. I'm not saying it isn't an issue worth discussing, but it's a relatively insignificant matter. Of course, in the election season, it has blown up into a big deal as candidates grasp onto anything that might possibly give them an advantage.
Look, I understand you don't like Biden. There are lots of valid reasons not to. I've listed some in one of my posts about him. But two criticisms that are unfair and baseless are that he is dishonest and corrupt. Your calling him dishonest (this thread 12/5 9:22 p.m. ET) and corrupt (12/5 9:32 p.m. ET) is what has really gotten me on my high horse. To use one of your sayings, you are better than that. You know he isn't corrupt. I assume you know he's an honest guy. I'm happy to debate any and all legitimate issues about Joe, but to call him dishonest or corrupt is just beyond the pale.