2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[a fan]

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.

I'd support Biden over Trump in a heartbeat. Biden stepped over the ethical line.

Trump never had a line in the first place......

I'd vote for a fire hydrant before I'd vote for Trump.

[jhu72]

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.

Could not agree more. I seem to recall having said something very similar a month or so ago. I am sure there is some minor dirt somewhere, he is human, but compared to the rest of Washington, he is a saint. At least that is my perception and I think it is also the perception of his longtime working class base. Said it before, Trump is going to have to work hard to dirty up Joe, he is not a Hillary Clinton.

[jhu72]

Mayor Pete puts his foot in it.

[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...

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.

We somewhat disagree on this. Yes, Joe is currently powerless to do anything in particular for these companies, but payments today indeed could be understood (or misunderstood) as payments for access later, regardless of ongoing position or payments. Same as donations to Clinton Foundation, same as whopping big fees for speeches by Hillary and Bill (Bill's price doubled when it started to become apparent that Hillary would be running). They put off the announcement, despite everyone knowing, and racked up the fees under the notion of 'hey' I might not even run'.

Anything illegal? No. But it smelled bad.
And smelling bad hurt her ability to go after Trump's far worse lifelong corruption.

So, perception is an issue. It's a problem for Joe.

I think he's displayed a blind spot on this, seems to not actually understand, though is defensive.

I'm not sure why that is; I don't have the same sense that some do that Joe is actually corrupt, however he's definitely tone deaf.

I'd rather he own the mistake and move on.

[MDlaxfan76]

Mayor Pete puts his foot in it.

He 'put his foot in it' from the perspective of folks like Lawrence O'Donnell, policy nerds of the left, but not from the position of moderate Dems and independents or disaffected R's like me.

Come on, have Dems actually been "comfortable" talking about "deficit reduction" over the past 50 years, or have they been on the defensive as the 'tax and spend' party?

Yes, the reality is that when the GOP has been in power deficits have risen more and faster than when Dems have been in power, but Mayor Pete was speaking to Dems taking ownership of this reality and actually make it an effective argument for them for a change.

He's right.

But yeah, Warren's and Sanders' voters won't find Pete's position to be attractive. They want full-throated defense of much, much higher domestic spending and much higher, progressive taxation. That's fine, but has anyone heard either of those two challenge deficits? Or is it all about who benefits?

[jhu72]

Mayor Pete puts his foot in it.

He 'put his foot in it' from the perspective of folks like Lawrence O'Donnell, policy nerds of the left, but not from the position of moderate Dems and independents or disaffected R's like me.

Come on, have Dems actually been "comfortable" talking about "deficit reduction" over the past 50 years, or have they been on the defensive as the 'tax and spend' party?

Yes, the reality is that when the GOP has been in power deficits have risen more and faster than when Dems have been in power, but Mayor Pete was speaking to Dems taking ownership of this reality and actually make it an effective argument for them for a change.

He's right.

But yeah, Warren's and Sanders' voters won't find Pete's position to be attractive. They want full-throated defense of much, much higher domestic spending and much higher, progressive taxation. That's fine, but has anyone heard either of those two challenge deficits? Or is it all about who benefits?

Perception vs reality (O'Donnell). Pete is branding himself as a new kind of democrat (modern). He needs a reference point (perception) so he picks one that the republicans have invested in, successfully. Good strategy for the general, but it will cost him in the primaries.

[MDlaxfan76]

Mayor Pete puts his foot in it.

He 'put his foot in it' from the perspective of folks like Lawrence O'Donnell, policy nerds of the left, but not from the position of moderate Dems and independents or disaffected R's like me.

Come on, have Dems actually been "comfortable" talking about "deficit reduction" over the past 50 years, or have they been on the defensive as the 'tax and spend' party?

Yes, the reality is that when the GOP has been in power deficits have risen more and faster than when Dems have been in power, but Mayor Pete was speaking to Dems taking ownership of this reality and actually make it an effective argument for them for a change.

He's right.

But yeah, Warren's and Sanders' voters won't find Pete's position to be attractive. They want full-throated defense of much, much higher domestic spending and much higher, progressive taxation. That's fine, but has anyone heard either of those two challenge deficits? Or is it all about who benefits?

Perception vs reality (O'Donnell). Pete is branding himself as a new kind of democrat (modern). He needs a reference point (perception) so he picks one that the republicans have invested in, successfully. Good strategy for the general, but it will cost him in the primaries.

Yes, it probably does hurt him a bit in the primaries...but he's right and it will be interesting to see how he moves the discussion. He's going to take some heat and that too will provide an opportunity, attention to what he has to say about it.

I think as we get closer and closer to the actual general, voters will continue to ask themselves who will beat Trump and how they will do it. That will only elevate in priority.

This ability to go after the 'deficit' (a very serious weakness for Trump) will be something Pete 'owns', along with Bloomberg I think. I don't think Biden would be as adept.

Pete can 'own' the military vet, foreign policy perspective vs Trump. And he can 'own' the ability to speak the faith language of evangelicals.

Warren and Bernie fail in these regards to be able to take advantage of various Trump weaknesses.

Biden will get the benefit of the doubt and be able to exploit some of these issues, however he's going to be dogged by this notion that he's been around forever and part of the swamp. If that proves to be true down the stretch, those voters happy to support him today may well move to a Pete or Bloomberg.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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.

Look at Carlyle Group for heavens sake.

[ggait]

November Trump fav/unfav in the swing states per Morning Consult:

AZ -4
FL +1
GA -3
IA -13
MI -14
NV -7
NC -2
OH -5
PA -7
TX +3
WI -14

[ABV 8.3%]

Or Kerry Forbes.........John Kerry's cousin over at the "construction" company, getting EXCLUSIVE development rights in Vietnam to open suicical slave children factories, while destroying constituants jobs. Biden and Kerry's offspring travel to China?

Biden calls an 83 year old man fat (Warren supporter, btw )

Charges him too. The fact that THIS media outlet is NOT surpressing this story is further proof that Hillaryious Clinton will be running.....Joe Biden is an arswhole, just like trump/

Tulsi Gabbard is STILL running......

....and people who post "polls" are silly. They are lies. Guess all that support in New Hampshire , fake support, for Biden...just doesn't seem to show when you drive around. What, 40% of NY voters support Biden Such lies.

Biden has NO visible support in New Hampshire. (seacoast can confirm too )

NO---yard signs.
NO--groups of people holding signs
NO--bumper stickers

Biden is a putz. Is he still a practicing Katholic? Supporting LIFE, not abortion?

Here comes HIllaRYouS

[youthathletics]

November Trump fav/unfav in the swing states per Morning Consult:

AZ -4
FL +1
GA -3
IA -13
MI -14
NV -7
NC -2
OH -5
PA -7
TX +3
WI -14

#QFP (Quoted for Posterity) Just to see how it turns out in 2020.

[njbill]

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.

We somewhat disagree on this. Yes, Joe is currently powerless to do anything in particular for these companies, but payments today indeed could be understood (or misunderstood) as payments for access later, regardless of ongoing position or payments. Same as donations to Clinton Foundation, same as whopping big fees for speeches by Hillary and Bill (Bill's price doubled when it started to become apparent that Hillary would be running). They put off the announcement, despite everyone knowing, and racked up the fees under the notion of 'hey' I might not even run'.

Anything illegal? No. But it smelled bad.
And smelling bad hurt her ability to go after Trump's far worse lifelong corruption.

So, perception is an issue. It's a problem for Joe.

I think he's displayed a blind spot on this, seems to not actually understand, though is defensive.

I'm not sure why that is; I don't have the same sense that some do that Joe is actually corrupt, however he's definitely tone deaf.

I'd rather he own the mistake and move on.

I see a big difference between Hunter's board position from inception (April 2014) through Jan. 2017 when Joe left office and his board position thereafter. I agree that Hunter shouldn't have taken that job for all the reasons I and others have stated. Nothing that has been posted, however, has altered my view that it would be inappropriate to criticize Joe for what Hunter did UNLESS Joe got him the job, encouraged him to keep the position, discussed Burisma-related issues with Hunter, or otherwise provided Hunter/Burisma with info, access, or the like. If evidence of some affirmative or active wrongdoing by Joe is disclosed, I would reconsider my position.

Now, moving on, as it seems our positions are set in concrete on the above.

I want to get back to your position that Hunter should resign now from all board positions since his father is running for president. (Apologies if I have mischaracterized what you have said.) My position is that no relative needs to resign from anything unless or until the candidate wins election.

At the outset, we should observe that, to my knowledge, there are no laws, regulations, or rules that govern this "pre-election" time frame as to a relative of a candidate running for president. (Indeed, as has been noted, there aren't any rules prohibiting what Hunter did, though many say it was improper.)

My question to you is what do you say the protocols should be and where do you draw the line for relatives of candidates running for president? I don't understand you to be advocating for the passage of actual laws or regulations, but rather to be arguing for a sort of best practices guideline. I asked above: "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?" Which relatives are covered? What about close friends or business associates? In addition to board positions, what about senior management positions or majority stock holdings as those potentially implicate the same type of "improper access mischief"?

I think a rule requiring the above family members to resign from boards and executive positions, etc., and to sell controlling stock positions when a candidate announces he or she is running for president is overly broad. Fundamentally, it is unnecessary because the "evil" such a rule would be designed to address is too remote. First of all, there could be no actual conflict of interest (no actual possibility of access) until the candidate won the election. Second, I don't think any theoretical appearance of a (future) possible conflict is significant enough to warrant such a prescriptive (and really draconian) rule. Here is where we differ, I think. You say: "payments today indeed could be understood (or misunderstood) as payments for access later, regardless of ongoing position or payments." My view is the candidate, now president, is much less likely to do favors for or grant inappropriate access to a company with which his relative is no longer affiliated (this assumes the resignations take place upon election of the candidate). I suspect neither one of us is going to budge on this.

What I am trying to get at in this post, though, is what are the rules you think should apply, both in terms of which relatives are covered and which types of positions (director, I understand, but what about senior management, controlling stock interest, or the like?) must be terminated? Where are the lines drawn? TIA.

[a fan]

What I am trying to get at in this post, though, is what are the rules you think should apply, both in terms of which relatives are covered and which types of positions (director, I understand, but what about senior management, controlling stock interest, or the like?) must be terminated? Where are the lines drawn? TIA.

We already have a template for all Federal officials, elected, or no.

Use the American Bar Association guidelines for "Personal Interest Conflicts". And wherever you see the word "client", substitute "American citizens".

So for example, " The Federal workers own interests should not be permitted to have an adverse effect on representation of American citizens."

Hunter's job could have an adverse effect on Biden's job promoting American interests in Ukraine.


So what could have been done? Simple. Either Hunter leaves the firm, or Dad recuses himself, and doesn't do his corruption work in Ukraine, and sends a proxy. In addition, Biden informs his client----American citizens----of the conflict.

Problem solved. American citizens' interests are served, and Hunter keeps his job.

[ardilla secreta]

Bingo!

[old salt]

Yep. Kerry could deal with Ukraine in Biden's stead. No conflict there. ...oh wait.

[njbill]

What I am trying to get at in this post, though, is what are the rules you think should apply, both in terms of which relatives are covered and which types of positions (director, I understand, but what about senior management, controlling stock interest, or the like?) must be terminated? Where are the lines drawn? TIA.

We already have a template for all Federal officials, elected, or no.

Use the American Bar Association guidelines for "Personal Interest Conflicts". And wherever you see the word "client", substitute "American citizens".

So for example, " The Federal workers own interests should not be permitted to have an adverse effect on representation of American citizens."

Hunter's job could have an adverse effect on Biden's job promoting American interests in Ukraine.


So what could have been done? Simple. Either Hunter leaves the firm, or Dad recuses himself, and doesn't do his corruption work in Ukraine, and sends a proxy. In addition, Biden informs his client----American citizens----of the conflict.

Problem solved. American citizens' interests are served, and Hunter keeps his job.

I assume you are referring to this rule:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/prof ... t_clients/

There are also official comments to the rule:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/prof ... _rule_1_7/

It seems to me that you were quoting from comment 10 and are suggesting "federal worker" be substituted for "lawyer" and "American citizens" for "client." You are saying Joe is the federal worker whose interests shouldn't be permitted to have an adverse effect on the American people. To make your reliance on this rule work, you'd need to say Joe's interests include Hunter's. I don't think they do technically under this ABA rule, though I can see why you may think the principle behind the rule is generally applicable here. Hunter doesn't fit into this rule anywhere. He isn't a federal worker and isn't an American citizen in the context of this rule. Moreover, under this rule, the "client" or the "American citizen" is not obligated by this rule to do anything. Thus, this rule wouldn't require Hunter to quit his job. The rule would only require Joe to recuse himself if his interests are deemed to include Hunter's (which, as I said, they don't under this ABA rule) and if those interests have an adverse effect on Joe's job as VP.

Also, while Joe's recusing himself from Ukraine may solve any "conflict," I'm not sure if it is in the interests of the American people to limit the matters on which their VP can act. I'm not saying the Hunter/Joe/Burisma situation isn't a problem, just that the solution may not be found in the language of this rule and the comments.

I believe it has been fairly well established that neither Hunter nor Joe violated any laws, regulations, or rules that have been in effect at any relevant time. So, should there be express rules to cover this type of situation, binding on both the government official and the private citizen? I'm OK with that, though the issues and ramifications are complicated and would need to be carefully thought through. I don't have a handy solution at my fingertips, though perhaps the general philosophy behind this rule could offer some guidance for coming up with a rule.

I think your post was addressing the actual Hunter/Joe/Burisma situation. But the main purpose of my above post (including the portion you quoted) was to try to get MD to lay out his rules for the circumstances in which relatives of candidates for president should resign positions they have while the candidate is running for office. (Concededly, I sprinkled in a lot of verbiage on other issues.) My view is set out above as is his. I'm interested in his rules.

OK, can't resist circling back to my core pet issue: I've seen nothing to suggest Joe did anything wrong. I know I won't convince you, but humor me and let's try some fact patterns. We actually don't know what was said between Joe and Hunter. They claim they didn't talk about Burisma, but I find that hard to believe. Maybe (hopefully) they didn't discuss access-type stuff, but they had to have had conversations.

So, fact pattern one: Joe did, in fact, provide info to Hunter that was helpful to Burisma. Could be inside info on U.S. policy towards Ukraine, Russia. Could be something else. That would be wrong and really bad in my view, and if that happened, Joe should definitely be criticized.

Fact pattern two: Hunter didn't tell Joe he was taking the job. When Joe found out, he raised holy he11 with Hunter, told him he needed to quit, said it was putting him in a really bad situation, told him he was getting reamed out by the administration. Hunter says, oh dad, you are overreacting. I'm not working for Ukraine. It's a private company with no U.S. interests. It's no big deal. And round and round. Neither budges.
Finally, Hunter says, OK Boomer, I've heard what you've had to say. You are wrong. Stop trying to tell me what to do. I'm 44 years old. It's my life. It's my decision. I love you, but f*ck off on this.

What more would you expect Joe to do? He can't force his son to quit. How would you feel about Joe in this fact pattern?

[MDlaxfan76]

November Trump fav/unfav in the swing states per Morning Consult:

AZ -4
FL +1
GA -3
IA -13
MI -14
NV -7
NC -2
OH -5
PA -7
TX +3
WI -14

#QFP (Quoted for Posterity) Just to see how it turns out in 2020.

Of course, these could remain the same and he still wins...all depends on the favorable/unfavorable of his opponent.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

We somewhat disagree on this. Yes, Joe is currently powerless to do anything in particular for these companies, but payments today indeed could be understood (or misunderstood) as payments for access later, regardless of ongoing position or payments. Same as donations to Clinton Foundation, same as whopping big fees for speeches by Hillary and Bill (Bill's price doubled when it started to become apparent that Hillary would be running). They put off the announcement, despite everyone knowing, and racked up the fees under the notion of 'hey' I might not even run'.

Anything illegal? No. But it smelled bad.
And smelling bad hurt her ability to go after Trump's far worse lifelong corruption.

So, perception is an issue. It's a problem for Joe.

I think he's displayed a blind spot on this, seems to not actually understand, though is defensive.

I'm not sure why that is; I don't have the same sense that some do that Joe is actually corrupt, however he's definitely tone deaf.

I'd rather he own the mistake and move on.

I see a big difference between Hunter's board position from inception (April 2014) through Jan. 2017 when Joe left office and his board position thereafter. I agree that Hunter shouldn't have taken that job for all the reasons I and others have stated. Nothing that has been posted, however, has altered my view that it would be inappropriate to criticize Joe for what Hunter did UNLESS Joe got him the job, encouraged him to keep the position, discussed Burisma-related issues with Hunter, or otherwise provided Hunter/Burisma with info, access, or the like. If evidence of some affirmative or active wrongdoing by Joe is disclosed, I would reconsider my position.

Now, moving on, as it seems our positions are set in concrete on the above.

I want to get back to your position that Hunter should resign now from all board positions since his father is running for president. (Apologies if I have mischaracterized what you have said.) My position is that no relative needs to resign from anything unless or until the candidate wins election.

At the outset, we should observe that, to my knowledge, there are no laws, regulations, or rules that govern this "pre-election" time frame as to a relative of a candidate running for president. (Indeed, as has been noted, there aren't any rules prohibiting what Hunter did, though many say it was improper.)

My question to you is what do you say the protocols should be and where do you draw the line for relatives of candidates running for president? I don't understand you to be advocating for the passage of actual laws or regulations, but rather to be arguing for a sort of best practices guideline. I asked above: "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?" Which relatives are covered? What about close friends or business associates? In addition to board positions, what about senior management positions or majority stock holdings as those potentially implicate the same type of "improper access mischief"?

I think a rule requiring the above family members to resign from boards and executive positions, etc., and to sell controlling stock positions when a candidate announces he or she is running for president is overly broad. Fundamentally, it is unnecessary because the "evil" such a rule would be designed to address is too remote. First of all, there could be no actual conflict of interest (no actual possibility of access) until the candidate won the election. Second, I don't think any theoretical appearance of a (future) possible conflict is significant enough to warrant such a prescriptive (and really draconian) rule. Here is where we differ, I think. You say: "payments today indeed could be understood (or misunderstood) as payments for access later, regardless of ongoing position or payments." My view is the candidate, now president, is much less likely to do favors for or grant inappropriate access to a company with which his relative is no longer affiliated (this assumes the resignations take place upon election of the candidate). I suspect neither one of us is going to budge on this.

What I am trying to get at in this post, though, is what are the rules you think should apply, both in terms of which relatives are covered and which types of positions (director, I understand, but what about senior management, controlling stock interest, or the like?) must be terminated? Where are the lines drawn? TIA.

ahhh, I do see your issue.
You want to understand what I think are hard and fast 'rules' for such situations.

The problem is that I'm speaking politically, and inherently such is based in the circumstances, not hard and fast rules.

Here we have a situation in which the opponent, Trump, is immensely corrupt, all sorts of emoluments and conflicts of interest situations for himself, his business, and those of his immediate family.

Do you (Joe) want to be able to fully exploit this issue politically or do you want to be hampered in doing so by 'whataboutism' ala what happened to Clinton?

The other 'circumstance' is that, as you said, the prior choice to be on the board at Burisma and the conflict that presented for Joe in his working on corruption in Ukraine was wrong, and so it remains as something that cannot be avoided as reflecting on the current decisions.

So, the only way to wash this away is to own it as a past mistake and to demonstrate going forward a personal commitment to clean hands, the strict avoidance of conflicts of interest and perceptions of such. Starting immediately. Otherwise it's seen as just another 'promise'...and we've seen promises not kept, right?

Joe needs as stark a contrast as possible with Trump.
That's not a rule, just that he needs to eliminate any question going forward if he wants to exploit this issue of Trumpworld's corruption.

And the job right now is to defeat Trump.

[njbill]

I see your point and pretty much agree with your analysis.

[a fan]

What more would you expect Joe to do? He can't force his son to quit. How would you feel about Joe in this fact pattern?

Asked 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?