“Both the office holder and the relative have an obligation to the American people not to create the appearance that the office holder’s office is being used for the personal financial gain of the relative,” he said, “because that simply undermines public confidence in the office holder and the whole system.”
I anticipate being told I’m a broken record again for pointing this out, but Hunter Biden isn’t a high-level member of the administration. He’s a private citizen. There’s no linkage anyone has been able to show between Hunter Biden’s financial arrangements and his father’s policy decisions.
Post 115 
Anything is a bad look when the right wing scandal machine makes it into a caricature of reality.
There is no way to avoid that.
Can you think of any job Hunter can do, anything at all that he can make any money off of that wouldn’t be lit up with righteous indignation and outrage by the right wingers?
No, there’s nothing. And even if he were to realize that and kill himself, he’d be criticized for trying to gain sympathy for Joe.
It’s only a bad look because you have chosen to see it all through Fox tinted glasses. That’s not Joe’s fault, that’s not Hunter’s fault, that’s your own choice.
You also make the choice of then doing the work of the right wing scandal machine and then acting as though they have a point, spreading their message, and continuing the line that there is something that the Bidens doing that is unethical.
It’s funny that people suspect this is all an elaborate scheme to allow rich people to curry favor with Biden by giving him money. Because, you know, our campaign finance laws are so tough and strictly enforced that that couldn’t possibly be done in any way not involving some convoluted plot.
Does the right wing scandal machine have any obligation not to turn anything, no matter how innocuous and benign, into an appearance of personal financial gain?
That’s all that is happening here. You are being sold a bill of goods, and you are willingly paying up, and asking us to help foot the bill.
I ask again, what can Hunter do that would pay his bills that you wouldn’t see as something that appears to be using the office for personal financial gain? Is there anything at all that you would, once presented the spin by the right wing scandal machine, say is acceptable?
If I hired him to groom dogs, would that be okay?
What did Joe Biden do to “create the appearance” that his office is being used for personal financial gain of his son? You know, besides failing to throw Hunter off a cliff?
What, and reveal the influence of Big Gravity?
Yes, that’s the post I’m responding to. You refer to “high-level administration folks”, of which Hunter Biden isn’t one. If you’re referring back to your repeated quote from that Newsday article, 1) it’s paywalled so I can’t read it, which means that 2) your quote is an out of context anonymous quote. Instead of just cutting and pasting that quote, would you tell me why you think a relative of the sitting president who is a private citizen with no official ties is under some sort of obligation to the American people? And what does this have to do with Joe Biden’s obligations?
The way the Bidens can mitigate this is to comply with ethics rules, which they seem to be doing.
If you honestly believe I was suggesting that Hunter Biden “had constituents”… well, that’s just a simple disunderstanding.
No, they have gone above and beyond the ethics rules.
But that’s still not enough, apparently.
Well, one Biden has constituents, and the other is selling paintings.
Which one are you talking about?
So you (apparently) suggest I’m engaging in “bothsiderism”, and then prove it by… pointing at wrongdoing on the other side? Have I got that right?
One side did – at the top of their lungs.
See the problem ?
‘Never give an inch’ didn’t help the country. Arguably, it only helped that side’s party.
Which party is that? The one that won the presidency in 2020 or the one that lost it?
I’m not talking about sides, I’m talking about legitimate media sources and independent watchdogs. Not talk show hosts or elected officials trying to rile up their base to get votes and donations.
What I’m saying, if it wasn’t clear, was that Democrats and left-leaning media shrieked to the heavens about the criminality and endless corruption of the Trump administration.
And Democrats finally were able to impeach the MF for what I saw as virtually inarguable high crimes (Ukraine, the Železný extortion).
[They might really have had him on Obstruction, too.]
But the mortal lock of the Republicans and RW media rendered it effectively impotent.
It remains to be seen if anything comes of the myriad investigations into him, his organization, and his cronies.
There was no equivalent to Watergate’s Larry Hogan in 45’s administration.
Not really.
This is what comes of ‘never giving an inch.’
Misstates the issue, too.
If I put another door into my house, it creates a vulnerability that I should consider.
There’s an old saying about prison: the prisoners have nothing to do all day long except plan their escape.
Criminals pretty much operate the same way. If there’s too much attention being paid to one ‘pathway,’ you look for another.
I remember a lot of details of the Ukraine scandal under 45. I just wonder how hard it would be for two mooks like these to funnel money to somebody they think might be useful to their interests via opaque transactions.
And if it did happen, how would we know ?
There’s a vulnerability here because of significant (inflated ?) sums of money under consideration and the inability of the general public to learn of it.
Despite the totality of Uranium One, HRC made one equivalent error that was used against her:
From 2009–13, the Russian atomic energy agency (Rosatom) acquired Uranium One, a Canadian company with global uranium mining stakes including 20% of the uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset with national security implications, the acquisition was analyzed by a committee of nine government agencies, including the State Department, which was then headed by Clinton.[19][1][20] The voting members of the committee can object to such a foreign transaction, but the final decision then rests with the president.[21]
In April 2015, The New York Times reported that, during the acquisition, the family foundation of Uranium One’s chairman made $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. The donations which were legal were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite a prior agreement to do so. In addition, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin and which was promoting Uranium One stock paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow shortly after the acquisition was announced.[1][20]
This stuff isn’t unprecedented. Nobody should wonder whether foreign interests exploit circuitous paths to funnel money to places where they anticipate a return.
Why leave the door unlocked in the first place ?
Yeah I understand. I don’t expect the RW media to do the same. (Well, admittedly some of Trump’s worst actions were even criticized by some on the right, but not nearly often enough and not nearly as strongly as they should have been. Trump was just that bad.)
My probably overly-optimistic stance is that they couldn’t really get started until he was out of office, so it might take some time. He’s unable to obstruct now like he did back then, so maybe something can happen. I think there might still be Republican obstruction from Congress to still worry about though.