2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[njbill]

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?

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).

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.

[a fan]

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.

Assuming Joe does what's in the press release----works with every other country in the world except Urkaine? Yes. That solves all problems.

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.

And this is where I got the clear message that you think we need to look out for Joe's interest.

Because who gets harmed when Joe stays out Ukraine? Hunter? Nope. American citizens? Nope, we have plenty of Federal employee who can handle Ukraine-US relations just fine.

So when you say "unreasonable and wrong", clearly, plainly you're only talking about Joe Biden. And I don't care about Joe Biden's interests. The American Government isn't a toy for "some guy" to use. This is serious stuff, and these Federal workers (elected, or no) are supposed to be working in the best interest of Americans in mind.

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.

This is different. For one, the President can't---to stay on point----avoid dealing with Ukraine. A VP can, with little or no effort. Think: Dan Quayle. How much time do you suppose Quayle spend on Ukrainian corruption while in office?

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.

You're getting bogged down in details that don't matter. It looks bad for Joe to be working on Ukrainian corruption while his son is handed a cupcake phony "job". It doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone any tests of logic.

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.

No argument here. Obviously Trump's family conflicts are comically exponentially worse than Biden's.

That doesn't make it right.

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.

I got "dishonest" from the idea that he "didn't know" Hunter was working for Burisma. Unless Joe was verified to have written his son off completely for decades, sorry, there's NO WAY he's telling the truth. Can I prove it? Nope. You've got me on that count....but I hardly think I'm making an unreasonable assertion here.

If you want to tell me that relative to DC Congressmen, he's not corrupt? Ok.

Understand my perspective: I'm tired of lowering the bar for our public servants. It's an inherently dangerous practice. And it's worse than ever in 2019.

[a fan]

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.

Assuming Joe does what's in the press release----works with every other country in the world except Urkaine? Yes. That solves all problems.

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.

And this is where I got the clear message that you think we need to look out for Joe's interest.

Because who gets harmed when Joe stays out Ukraine? Hunter? Nope. American citizens? Nope, we have plenty of Federal employee who can handle Ukraine-US relations just fine.

So when you say "unreasonable and wrong", clearly, plainly you're only talking about Joe Biden. And I don't care about Joe Biden's interests. The American Government isn't a toy for "some guy" to use. This is serious stuff, and these Federal workers (elected, or no) are supposed to be working in the best interest of Americans in mind.

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.

This is different. For one, the President can't---to stay on point----avoid dealing with Ukraine. A VP can, with little or no effort. Think: Dan Quayle. How much time do you suppose Quayle spend on Ukrainian corruption while in office?

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.

You're getting bogged down in details that don't matter. It looks bad for Joe to be working on Ukrainian corruption while his son is handed a cupcake phony "job". It doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone any tests of logic.

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.

No argument here. Obviously Trump's family conflicts are comically and exponentially worse than Biden's.

That doesn't make it right.

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.

I got "dishonest" from the idea that he "didn't know" Hunter was working for Burisma. Unless Joe was verified to have written his son off completely for decades, sorry, there's NO WAY he's telling the truth. Can I prove it? Nope. You've got me on that count....but I hardly think I'm making an unreasonable assertion here.

If you want to tell me that relative to DC Congressmen, he's not corrupt? Ok.

Understand my perspective: I'm tired of lowering the bar for our public servants. It's an inherently dangerous practice. And it's worse than ever in 2019.

[njbill]

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.

And this is where I got the clear message that you think we need to look out for Joe's interest.

Because who gets harmed when Joe stays out Ukraine? Hunter? Nope. American citizens? Nope, we have plenty of Federal employee who can handle Ukraine-US relations just fine.

So when you say "unreasonable and wrong", clearly, plainly you're only talking about Joe Biden. And I don't care about Joe Biden's interests. The American Government isn't a toy for "some guy" to use. This is serious stuff, and these Federal workers (elected, or no) are supposed to be working in the best interest of Americans in mind.I don't see it that way and, frankly, am not really following your argument. How does allowing Joe to deal with non-Burisma Ukraine issues further Joe's interests? You lost me. Certainly not his financial or personal interests. His "interest" in being able to deal with Ukrainian issues as VP? That doesn't strike me as the type of "interest" conflicts rules are designed to address. I am simply saying the scope of recusal has to be limited to the matter that creates the conflict. Burisma creates the conflict so that is the matter covered by the recusal. But weapons for Ukraine or humanitarian aid or entry into the EU or NATO aren't related to Burisma. How is Joe's dealing with any of those issues a conflict?

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.

This is different. For one, the President can't---to stay on point----avoid dealing with Ukraine. A VP can, with little or no effort. Yeah, but if there is a conflict that requires recusal, why does it matter if the putative recusor is Pres. or VP?
It's the same evil, is it not?Think: Dan Quayle. How much time do you suppose Quayle spend on Ukrainian corruption while in office? I don't know, but I'll bet he could cook up a mean Ukrainian potatoe.

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.

You're getting bogged down in details that don't matter. It looks bad for Joe to be working on Ukrainian corruption while his son is handed a cupcake phony "job". Actually a better argument for you is that it looks bad for Joe to be working on corruption while his son is working for a company being investigated.
(See. I can be fair. ) I hear you. I'd like to know more about what Joe did, but yes, if he was involved in the corruption issue, that could be a problem. But the devil is in the details. What did he do?It doesn't pass the laugh test, let alone any tests of logic.

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.

No argument here. Obviously Trump's family conflicts are comically exponentially worse than Biden's.

That doesn't make it right.No, but the timing is probative of how serious the matter really is. If it really was serious, it would be raised when it happened, not years later during an election campaign in which the "accused" (Joe) is running for office.

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.

I got "dishonest" from the idea that he "didn't know" Hunter was working for Burisma. Maybe I have missed something, but I thought he said he didn't discuss Burisma with Hunter, not that he didn't know about it. As I have said, I am sure they discussed Burisma, though I hope they were only discussing Hunter's quitting the job, and related stuff.Unless Joe was verified to have written his son off completely for decades, sorry, there's NO WAY he's telling the truth. Can I prove it? Nope. You've got me on that count....but I hardly think I'm making an unreasonable assertion here.

If you want to tell me that relative to DC Congressmen, he's not corrupt? Ok.

Understand my perspective: I'm tired of lowering the bar for our public servants. It's an inherently dangerous practice. And it's worse than ever in 2019.

[a fan]

I don't see it that way and, frankly, am not really following your argument. How does allowing Joe to deal with non-Burisma Ukraine issues further Joe's interests? You lost me.

The reason you are struggling is that you keep using the Bidens perspective.

Instead, look from the taxpayers' perspective, and change the wording.....and you'll get clarity:

How does prohibiting Joe from dealing with non-Burisma Ukraine issues harm the taxpayer?


See the difference? The answer, of course, is it doesn't harm the taxpayer for Joe to recuse himself. Remember, Joe wasn't "some guy". He was a public servant. Recusing himself doesn't harm the taxpayer. And for that matter, it doesn't harm Joe Biden.

If this is the case, the decision to recuse is easy, is it not? No one is harmed. The business of the people proceeds.


You can bet your bottom dollar Joe wishes that he had followed my advice. Why? Because it looks bad, and it doesn't serve the people. Full Stop. Now Trump and his POS friends are jumping on it. Laughable, given Trump's myriad conflicts....but why give the man ammo?

Yeah, but if there is a conflict that requires recusal, why does it matter if the putative recusor is Pres. or VP?
It's the same evil, is it not?

Yes. But it's unavoidable. It's a singularity. You can't ask Obama to never deal with Ukraine. But you can EASILY ask Biden to avoid Ukraine.

Again, you're fighting a strange fight. Who does it harm if Biden leaves Ukraine alone? No one. So...what's the problem?

Actually a better argument for you is that it looks bad for Joe to be working on corruption while his son is working for a company being investigated.
(See. I can be fair. ) I hear you. I'd like to know more about what Joe did, but yes, if he was involved in the corruption issue, that could be a problem. But the devil is in the details. What did he do?

He went on record that he didn't know Hunter worked there.

Joe Biden: I didn't know he was on the board of that company.

Again, I don't believe Joe here. Sorry.

No, but the timing is probative of how serious the matter really is. If it really was serious, it would be raised when it happened, not years later during an election campaign in which the "accused" (Joe) is running for office.

Again, no argument here.

What I'm telling you is that I have a higher standard of government behavior than others do. And I understand that most don't agree with my views on the subject. I think that's sad, frankly, but you're right that Biden is far more honest than most in DC.

[njbill]

I don't see it that way and, frankly, am not really following your argument. How does allowing Joe to deal with non-Burisma Ukraine issues further Joe's interests? You lost me.

The reason you are struggling is that you keep using the Bidens perspective.

Instead, look from the taxpayers' perspective, and change the wording.....and you'll get clarity:

How does prohibiting Joe from dealing with non-Burisma Ukraine issues harm the taxpayer?


See the difference? The answer, of course, is it doesn't harm the taxpayer for Joe to recuse himself. Remember, Joe wasn't "some guy". He was a public servant. Recusing himself doesn't harm the taxpayer. And for that matter, it doesn't harm Joe Biden.

If this is the case, the decision to recuse is easy, is it not? No one is harmed. The business of the people proceeds.

OK, I get it now. You are devising your own one-off rules to apply to Joe and Ukraine. They aren't really based on the ABA conflicts rule you cited yesterday. Nor are they tethered to any generally applicable principles. Notwithstanding that Joe didn't have a conflict with non-Burisma Ukraine matters, you don't want him to deal with them.

Your framing of the question doesn't square with conflicts principles. It's the wrong analytical framework. The proper analysis is to ask first whether Joe has a conflict. If he does, what issues/subjects/entities are implicated by the conflict? Then you may conclude he shouldn't deal with those issues/subjects/entities. That's the end of the exercise. There is no basis to preclude Joe from being involved in any issue, etc. with respect to which he has no conflict.

Boiled down to its essentials, you framed the question to get to your desired result. Once you have wandered outside the conflicts sphere and are operating in a principle-less universe (as you have and are), your question and your desired answer are stripped of any persuasive effect.

So if you don't want Joe to deal with Outer Mongolia or Antarctica, you frame the question thusly: How does prohibiting Joe from dealing with Outer Mongolia or Antarctica issues harm the taxpayer? Of course having Joe recused from those issues doesn't harm the taxpayer so ipso facto Joe is barred under your approach. You could make that argument about any country or any issue. Excluding the VP wouldn't harm the taxpayers, but that's no way to operate.

Stick with conflicts rules: if he is conflicted, recuse him from the areas of the conflict but nothing else. Simple, principled. And the correct way to run the railroad.


You can bet your bottom dollar Joe wishes that he had followed my advice. Yeah, well hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it? Unfortunately none of us can go back in time to change things that years later we'd like to change. We'd all have lead perfect lives then, but that isn't the real world. Why? Because it looks bad, and it doesn't serve the people. Full Stop. Now Trump and his POS friends are jumping on it. Laughable, given Trump's myriad conflicts....but why give the man ammo?

Yeah, but if there is a conflict that requires recusal, why does it matter if the putative recusor is Pres. or VP?
It's the same evil, is it not?

Yes. But it's unavoidable. It's a singularity. You can't ask Obama to never deal with Ukraine. But you can EASILY ask Biden to avoid Ukraine. Basically you are saying if Joe was president in 2014-17, it would have been fine for him to deal with Burisma as well as non-Burisma Ukraine matters. OK, but that sure seems to be pretty inconsistent with everything you have been saying about Biden.

Again, you're fighting a strange fight. Who does it harm if Biden leaves Ukraine alone? No one. So...what's the problem?

Actually a better argument for you is that it looks bad for Joe to be working on corruption while his son is working for a company being investigated.
(See. I can be fair. ) I hear you. I'd like to know more about what Joe did, but yes, if he was involved in the corruption issue, that could be a problem. But the devil is in the details. What did he do?

He went on record that he didn't know Hunter worked there.

Joe Biden: I didn't know he was on the board of that company.

Where are you getting that? I didn't spend a lot of time on searches, but what I found was something saying just the opposite: Joe said he told Hunter when he joined the board, "I sure hope to hell you know what you’re doing." So he acknowledged he knew Hunter got the job. George Kent said he raised an issue in the State Dept. in Feb. 2015 about a possible conflict. I saw something where Joe said no one told him that, probably, he said, because Beau was dying at the time. (He died in May.) As I have said several times, I'm sure more was said between Hunter and Joe, but I suspect Joe is trying to protect Hunter. I would certainly like to know the full story. The facts matter.

Again, I don't believe Joe here. Sorry.

No, but the timing is probative of how serious the matter really is. If it really was serious, it would be raised when it happened, not years later during an election campaign in which the "accused" (Joe) is running for office.

Again, no argument here.

What I'm telling you is that I have a higher standard of government behavior than others do. And I understand that most don't agree with my views on the subject. I think that's sad, frankly, but you're right that Biden is far more honest than most in DC.

[a fan]

OK, I get it now. You are devising your own one-off rules to apply to Joe and Ukraine. They aren't really based on the ABA conflicts rule you cited yesterday. Nor are they tethered to any generally applicable principles.

No. What I was giving was a guide as to what to do when a conflict appears. The conflict is obvious.

When the VP of the United States is in a foreign country, doing all sorts of things to get rid of corruption in said country.....his son can't get the equivalent of a six figure mafia no-show job in said country, when the closet to oil he's ever been is when he's been vacationing in Gstaad and hasn't shampooed his oily hair for a few days.

That's a freaking conflict, and the optics are horrible. "Hey Ukraine, you REALLY need to fix this corruption of yours. And it's a total ka-winky-dink my son just got a corrupt job in your country last week, so please ignore that".

The proper analysis is to ask first whether Joe has a conflict.

Yes. And he does.

Basically you are saying if Joe was president in 2014-17, it would have been fine for him to deal with Burisma as well as non-Burisma Ukraine matters.

Yes. But here's the thing: now the responsibility for not behaving like a selfish tw*t falls on Hunter. When offered the job, and daddy is POTUS, trying to eliminate corruption in Ukraine? You take a pass on the fake job in the country you know is corrupt, and use your Yale law degree to get a job somewhere else. Again: problem solved. Come on, man....you trying to tell me that you can't see that this job wasn't on the up and up?

And you're also acting like this is some impossible-to-avoid situation. It's not that hard to avoid.

Where are you getting that? ........I would certainly like to know the full story. The facts matter.

Here you go....in Joe's own words, on live TV:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... mpany.html

We've both had our say.....enjoy your weekend!

[njbill]

OK, I get it now. You are devising your own one-off rules to apply to Joe and Ukraine. They aren't really based on the ABA conflicts rule you cited yesterday. Nor are they tethered to any generally applicable principles.

No. What I was giving was a guide as to what to do when a conflict appears. You haven't provided a guide at all. You have dictated how one person should have acted in one situation only. That's not any kind of generally applicable guideline.The conflict is obvious. The conflict is Burisma. You want to say the conflict is the entirety of the Ukraine, but you can say that until you are blue in the face. It doesn't make it so.

When the VP of the United States is in a foreign country, doing all sorts of things to get rid of corruption in said country.....his son can't get the equivalent of a six figure mafia no-show job in said country, when the closet to oil he's ever been is when he's been vacationing in Gstaad and hasn't shampooed his oily hair for a few days. Come on. You are lazily glomming on to uninformed media blather. You know better. You run a company. Hunter was an outside director. I'll bet all or almost all Fortune 500 companies have outside directors with no specific expertise in the business of the company. They have expertise in other areas of value to the board. There are certainly things you can criticize about the job, but the fact that he didn't have expertise in natural gas isn't one of them.

That's a freaking conflict, and the optics are horrible. "Hey Ukraine, you REALLY need to fix this corruption of yours. And it's a total ka-winky-dink my son just got a corrupt job in your country last week, so please ignore that". Please. This is getting silly. No one anywhere has said any corruption laws were violated by Hunter or Burisma in hiring him. He got the job because of who his father was. Is that wrong? Many, including me, would say so, but kids in every state in every industry from the beginning of time have gotten jobs because of connections. That's not corruption. Check the dictionary definition which states dishonest or fraudulent conduct is required. None of that is here.

The proper analysis is to ask first whether Joe has a conflict.

Yes. And he does.You left out the rest of what I said as to the next two steps because they don't fit into your narrative. After you conclude there is a conflict (step 1), you identify the issues/matters/entities related to the conflict (step 2). Then you decide whether recusal is necessary (step 3). For the rest of what I said, see above.

Basically you are saying if Joe was president in 2014-17, it would have been fine for him to deal with Burisma as well as non-Burisma Ukraine matters.

Yes. But here's the thing: now the responsibility for not behaving like a selfish tw*t falls on Hunter. When offered the job, and daddy is POTUS, trying to eliminate corruption in Ukraine? You take a pass on the fake job in the country you know is corrupt, and use your Yale law degree to get a job somewhere else. Again: problem solved. Come on, man....you trying to tell me that you can't see that this job wasn't on the up and up? As I have said from the very outset, Hunter shouldn't have taken the job. You continue to want to pillory Joe for something his son did. That's wrong. I don't know why you won't acknowledge that.

And you're also acting like this is some impossible-to-avoid situation. Please. I never said that. In fact, I have said just the opposite (Hunter shouldn't have taken the job) many times. It's not that hard to avoid.

Where are you getting that? ........I would certainly like to know the full story. The facts matter.

Here you go....in Joe's own words, on live TV:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video ... mpany.html

Thanks for posting that, which directly contradicts the quote I posted. So, sure, that's a problem for Joe. He says to Judy he didn't know. He says to someone else on a NH radio station that he told Hunter when he joined the board, "I sure hope to hell you know what you’re doing."

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/139-new- ... -50623467/ (about 4:35 mark). Maybe he would have a satisfactory explanation for this apparent discrepancy, maybe not. As I have said, we need to get to the bottom of the facts.

With all due respect, the key flaw in your argument is you say Joe's conflict extended to all Ukraine issues, including those unrelated to Burisma. That simply is incorrect under conflicts principles. His conflict extended to Burisma-related matters, but not to any other Ukraine issues. I think you understand that, but you believe the better practice would have been for him to avoid all Ukraine matters. Well that is your Monday morning quarterback "higher standard" rule which I suppose is admirable on one level, but it isn't required under conflicts rules. And it is unfair to criticize someone for following the rules just because they don't adhere to your utopian view of the world.

We've both had our say.....enjoy your weekend!You as well.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting back and forth.

Bottomline, this is a political albatross for Joe.
Not something that proves he's corrupt, but rather blunts his ability to change the subject to Trump's corruption.
Which is a huge weakness for Trump to be exploited by a candidate against him, probably Trump's greatest weakness.

I do think that Joe's judgment on this issue, at the time, and since was and is flawed.
It's not simply about whether he broke any rules, it's that he failed to understand the ramifications and didn't do, and still hasn't done, enough to avoid the appearance of potential conflicts of interest.

One nit, the reason why the issue at the time involved Ukraine as a whole was that by not avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest created by Hunter's involvement there, Joe's own job promoting anti-corruption efforts, in the national security and foreign policy interest of the USA, was compromised.

Of course, the BS spewing about this from right wing media and pols is truly ugly and false.
We needn't fall into that trap to look at Joes' challenge with clear eyes.

[njbill]

Interesting back and forth.

Bottomline, this is a political albatross for Joe. Agreed. It certainly has become so. It is a mess that he told a NH radio station one thing on Oct. 10 and told Judy Woodruff what appears to be the opposite three weeks later. I completely agree with what you said a few days ago that Joe has to come out ASAP with a much, much better explanation, complete with "political" apology. He has committed the cardinal political sin of closing his eyes, sticking his head in the sand, and hoping this will all go away. It won't.
Not something that proves he's corrupt, but rather blunts his ability to change the subject to Trump's corruption.
Which is a huge weakness for Trump to be exploited by a candidate against him, probably Trump's greatest weakness.I think the Burisma issue will hurt Joe more in the primary than the general if he gets that far. Trump's corruption so far outweighs any Biden peccadillos that any perceived shortcomings on his part pale in comparison to what Trump has done. Also, Trump has so badly bungled the Joe/Hunter/Burisma/Ukraine matter that any effectiveness that point might have had is greatly lessened. At least that is what I think (and hope).


I do think that Joe's judgment on this issue, at the time, and since was and is flawed.
It's not simply about whether he broke any rules, it's that he failed to understand the ramifications and didn't do, and still hasn't done, enough to avoid the appearance of potential conflicts of interest.That's a fair point, but let me offer this. Conflicts rules are designed to address future, prospective conduct. If Mr. A has a conflict, he shouldn't be involved in Matter X because we are concerned the conflict might improperly affect his decisions/conduct. Once the events have already transpired, however, it is much less important to focus on any pre-event appearance than it is to examine whether any actions were actually improperly influenced by the conflict. The pre-event appearance retains some relevance, but by far the more important analysis is whether the conflict caused improper conduct. Someone can have a conflict, but still do the right thing. So while it is fair at some level to say, in retrospect, Joe shouldn't have done this or should have done that, it is much more important to examine what he actually did. And on that score, I don't think there are any valid criticisms.

One nit, the reason why the issue at the time involved Ukraine as a whole was that by not avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest created by Hunter's involvement there, Joe's own job promoting anti-corruption efforts, in the national security and foreign policy interest of the USA, was compromised.That's a fair point, at least when viewed from the 2014 time frame when Hunter took the job. But, again, as I've argued in the preceding paragraph, it is much more important to look at what Joe actually did. Did his efforts turn out to be compromised? I would say no. He worked to root out corruption, not foster it. The prosecutor he said should be forced out was corrupt. Yes, it has turned out that the replacement was corrupt, too, but that certainly wasn't apparent at the time. If Joe had pushed to put corrupt politicians and prosecutors in place, that would be an entirely different thing, of course. But the actual steps he took were intended to have the effect of, as relevant to Burisma, bringing that company to justice.

Of course, the BS spewing about this from right wing media and pols is truly ugly and false.
We needn't fall into that trap to look at Joes' challenge with clear eyes.

[MDlaxfan76]

Interesting back and forth.

Bottomline, this is a political albatross for Joe. Agreed. It certainly has become so. It is a mess that he told a NH radio station one thing on Oct. 10 and told Judy Woodruff what appears to be the opposite three weeks later. I completely agree with what you said a few days ago that Joe has to come out ASAP with a much, much better explanation, complete with "political" apology. He has committed the cardinal political sin of closing his eyes, sticking his head in the sand, and hoping this will all go away. It won't.
Not something that proves he's corrupt, but rather blunts his ability to change the subject to Trump's corruption.
Which is a huge weakness for Trump to be exploited by a candidate against him, probably Trump's greatest weakness.I think the Burisma issue will hurt Joe more in the primary than the general if he gets that far. Trump's corruption so far outweighs any Biden peccadillos that any perceived shortcomings on his part pale in comparison to what Trump has done. Also, Trump has so badly bungled the Joe/Hunter/Burisma/Ukraine matter that any effectiveness that point might have had is greatly lessened. At least that is what I think (and hope).


I do think that Joe's judgment on this issue, at the time, and since was and is flawed.
It's not simply about whether he broke any rules, it's that he failed to understand the ramifications and didn't do, and still hasn't done, enough to avoid the appearance of potential conflicts of interest.That's a fair point, but let me offer this. Conflicts rules are designed to address future, prospective conduct. If Mr. A has a conflict, he shouldn't be involved in Matter X because we are concerned the conflict might improperly affect his decisions/conduct. Once the events have already transpired, however, it is much less important to focus on any pre-event appearance than it is to examine whether any actions were actually improperly influenced by the conflict. The pre-event appearance retains some relevance, but by far the more important analysis is whether the conflict caused improper conduct. Someone can have a conflict, but still do the right thing. So while it is fair at some level to say, in retrospect, Joe shouldn't have done this or should have done that, it is much more important to examine what he actually did. And on that score, I don't think there are any valid criticisms.

One nit, the reason why the issue at the time involved Ukraine as a whole was that by not avoiding the appearance of conflict of interest created by Hunter's involvement there, Joe's own job promoting anti-corruption efforts, in the national security and foreign policy interest of the USA, was compromised.That's a fair point, at least when viewed from the 2014 time frame when Hunter took the job. But, again, as I've argued in the preceding paragraph, it is much more important to look at what Joe actually did. Did his efforts turn out to be compromised? I would say no. He worked to root out corruption, not foster it. The prosecutor he said should be forced out was corrupt. Yes, it has turned out that the replacement was corrupt, too, but that certainly wasn't apparent at the time. If Joe had pushed to put corrupt politicians and prosecutors in place, that would be an entirely different thing, of course. But the actual steps he took were intended to have the effect of, as relevant to Burisma, bringing that company to justice.

Of course, the BS spewing about this from right wing media and pols is truly ugly and false.
We needn't fall into that trap to look at Joes' challenge with clear eyes.

I quite agree with what you say, especially where your expertise is clearly showing!
I just don't think this a matter of just what the truth is, but rather how the mere question can be used against him.

Yes, Trump's corruption is far, far worse, but the Dems need a candidate for whom there aren't any straightforward ways to do a 'whataboutism' counterattack and distraction. I think Joe could get there...but he better get there soon.

[old salt]

MDLF76 ;
Once the events have already transpired, however, it is much less important to focus on any pre-event appearance than it is to examine whether any actions were actually improperly influenced by the conflict. The pre-event appearance retains some relevance, but by far the more important analysis is whether the conflict caused improper conduct. Someone can have a conflict, but still do the right thing. So while it is fair at some level to say, in retrospect, Joe shouldn't have done this or should have done that, it is much more important to examine what he actually did. And on that score, I don't think there are any valid criticisms.

Who has examined this ? Who has reviewed the ph & meeting logs, emails & court documents ?
Ken Vogel (POLITICO the NYT) said there's a story there.
Who's following up, ...other than Rudy ?
The NPR interview with the TIME reporter which I linked, raised as many questions as it answered.
We're getting the old " Russian conspiracy theory" wave off. Nothing to see here.

[RedFromMI]

MDLF76 ;
Once the events have already transpired, however, it is much less important to focus on any pre-event appearance than it is to examine whether any actions were actually improperly influenced by the conflict. The pre-event appearance retains some relevance, but by far the more important analysis is whether the conflict caused improper conduct. Someone can have a conflict, but still do the right thing. So while it is fair at some level to say, in retrospect, Joe shouldn't have done this or should have done that, it is much more important to examine what he actually did. And on that score, I don't think there are any valid criticisms.

Who has examined this ? Who has reviewed the ph & meeting logs, emails & court documents ?
Ken Vogel (POLITICO the NYT) said there's a story there.
Who's following up, ...other than Rudy ?
The NPR interview with the TIME reporter which I linked, raised as many questions as it answered.
We're getting the old " Russian conspiracy theory" wave off. Nothing to see here.

Vogel says it because he was fooled by the same guys who are catering to Rudy. Everyone else in the MSM does not see anything. And there are those who have looked into it and say there is nothing (and far more than the lone Vogel).

[Trinity]

Jon Huntsman says the Ukraine excuse makes Vlad very happy with his work.

[njbill]

MDLF76 ;
Once the events have already transpired, however, it is much less important to focus on any pre-event appearance than it is to examine whether any actions were actually improperly influenced by the conflict. The pre-event appearance retains some relevance, but by far the more important analysis is whether the conflict caused improper conduct. Someone can have a conflict, but still do the right thing. So while it is fair at some level to say, in retrospect, Joe shouldn't have done this or should have done that, it is much more important to examine what he actually did. And on that score, I don't think there are any valid criticisms.

Who has examined this ? Who has reviewed the ph & meeting logs, emails & court documents ?
Ken Vogel (POLITICO the NYT) said there's a story there.
Who's following up, ...other than Rudy ?
The NPR interview with the TIME reporter which I linked, raised as many questions as it answered.
We're getting the old " Russian conspiracy theory" wave off. Nothing to see here.

Actually, I wrote what you quoted in red. These events started over five years ago. Why weren’t they a big deal at the time? Why did they only become a big deal after Joe announced? The fact that you, personally, haven’t been provided with all of the investigative materials doesn’t mean the matter hasn’t been adequately investigated. You know that Bill Barr and Rudy have turned over every rock in Ukraine. Be patient. Rudy says he’s got something big. Let’s see what it is.

[njbill]

By the way, you better tell Rudy to get cracking on his documentary so that it will be released by year’s end to be eligible for next year’s Oscars.

[old salt]

Who has examined this ? Who has reviewed the ph & meeting logs, emails & court documents ?
Ken Vogel (POLITICO the NYT) said there's a story there.
Who's following up, ...other than Rudy ?
The NPR interview with the TIME reporter which I linked, raised as many questions as it answered.
We're getting the old " Russian conspiracy theory" wave off. Nothing to see here.

Vogel says it because he was fooled by the same guys who are catering to Rudy. Everyone else in the MSM does not see anything. And there are those who have looked into it and say there is nothing (and far more than the lone Vogel).

Everyone else, huh ? Thanks for those specific links & citations.

[old salt]

njbill:
Once the events have already transpired, however, it is much less important to focus on any pre-event appearance than it is to examine whether any actions were actually improperly influenced by the conflict. The pre-event appearance retains some relevance, but by far the more important analysis is whether the conflict caused improper conduct. Someone can have a conflict, but still do the right thing. So while it is fair at some level to say, in retrospect, Joe shouldn't have done this or should have done that, it is much more important to examine what he actually did. And on that score, I don't think there are any valid criticisms.

Who has examined this ? Who has reviewed the ph & meeting logs, emails & court documents ?
Ken Vogel (POLITICO the NYT) said there's a story there.
Who's following up, ...other than Rudy ?
The NPR interview with the TIME reporter which I linked, raised as many questions as it answered.
We're getting the old " Russian conspiracy theory" wave off. Nothing to see here.

These events started over five years ago. Why weren’t they a big deal at the time? Why did they only become a big deal after Joe announced? The fact that you, personally, haven’t been provided with all of the investigative materials doesn’t mean the matter hasn’t been adequately investigated. You know that Bill Barr and Rudy have turned over every rock in Ukraine. Be patient. Rudy says he’s got something big. Let’s see what it is.

Same reason nobody cared about Trump's Russian dealing before 2015.
Could just be our next President. Not worth looking into.
Too bad Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok & Page aren't still on the job.
Rudy should hire Fusion GPS.

[Trinity]

Irrelevant. You won’t believe what Rudy found in Hawaii! Today is Q Day! Expecting mass arrests. Subpoena Chalupa!

[holmes435]

Same reason nobody cared about Trump's Russian dealing before 2015.
Could just be our next President. Not worth looking into.

Not really the same. Biden was pretty important and high up, being Vice President and all vs. some guy who was a Reality TV host. Republicans would have been all over it if there was any "there" there, and even so if there really wasn't.

If you're going to make extraordinary claims, there needs to be some shred of evidence. Like a phone call asking for a personal favor or something in return for help from the government.