I am perfectly willing to concede that Hunter Biden was primarily chosen for that position primarily due to his last name. I am also willing to concede that doing so is a bit skeevy, and should probably be avoided.
But if you prosecute every Senator or House member who has a family member that used their connection to the office holder to get ahead, you are going to have two pretty empty houses (not that that would be a bad thing).
There is zero evidence that Biden did anything unethical at the request of his son. His only action on Ukraine was to fire a known corrupt prosecutor who everyone in the state departement and European Union agreed needed to go.
Meanwhile lets consider another situation, Suppose a lawyer for a very influential politician is taken on by some Ukrainian businessmen including the owner of the conveniently named business “fraud guarantee”, who make illegal campaign contribution to the campaign of said politician, and who in then pressures the Ukrainian government to fire a diplomat who is well known as a crusader against corruption, while at the same time working towards the rehabilitation of the aforementioned corrupt prosecutor that Biden had managed to get rid of.
Don’t you think that this might also be due a little more scrutiny, Mr. Wrench?
And his own son, too, no? Running the family business, operating in Saudi Arabia, a country that receives military aid from the U.S… Innit exactly the same thing Hunter Biden is accused of?
Hi. I’ve been doing other things for a while, but have re-entered the thread.
I haven’t read any specifics of her hiring, but based on my knowledge of how directors are appointed to boards, most probably the answer to your question is yes. Ideally, a corporate director is someone who has the knowledge and expertise to oversee a corporation’s executives, and make sure they’re furthering the interests of the shareholders and other stakeholders. That requires having knowledge of the industry. Hiring a politician to sit on a board of directors essentially means Boeing is hiring a lobbyist. Boeing is paying Nikki Haley for her ability to influence people in power, rather than any expertise she can provide to the company. That’s the essence of corruption.
I stand by my cites which you have done nothing to refute.
Hunter Biden never went to Ukraine.
He had no experience in the natural gas industry, or any resources industry.
Serving as a “honorary” board member does not require any particular expertise. It merely requires connections. But feel free to dispute with facts and cites. Is anyone other than a Biden ally claiming that Hunter Biden was a recognised expert in corporate governance?
And as for this statement:
your “huge leap” is a blatantly obvious small step.
Pulling this post back to the OP, do you really think, if he’s elected president, it will be politically expedient for Joe Biden to try to pursue a criminal prosecution of Trump for bribery in Ukraine? I think Joe’s got enough manure on himself from that situation such that he’ll try to avoid any more manure being targeted at him.
You also don’t seem to have a firm grasp on the terms corruption or conflict of interest.
Joe Biden has zero manure on him regarding Ukraine. There is not one single action of Joe Biden’s in Ukraine that has been shown to be anything other than 100% consistent with US foreign policy.
The question is:
“When did Trump request a foreign government to manufacture false evidence?”
So far, you’ve provided no substance that Trump did so. You’re cites indicate that, at worst, he was trying to encourage an investigation that would generate negative publicity.
Do you believe that there’s a legal statute that been violated by Trump for manufacturing false evidence? If so, please cite the statute and explain the violation.
A publicly traded corporation has five sets of stakeholders: its shareholders, its executive management, its workers, its customers, and its community. The board of directors has a primary duty to look after the interest of the shareholders, and a secondary duty to look after the interest of the other stakeholders. Unfortunately, outside directors are often hired with the specific purpose of looking after the interest of the executive management. I doubt Nikki Haley was hired because of her expertise in the airline industry that would enable her to look after shareholders’ interests. She may have been hired because of her ability to look after other stakeholders’ interests, but without reading up on this hijack, I’m doubtful. Which means she was hired for her ability to influence people in the federal administration. That doesn’t mean she’s criminally corrupt. But it does mean that anyone dealing with her regarding federal contracts or legislation is susceptible to her influence. That paid-for influence is the starting point of corruption, even if it doesn’t rise to a criminal standard.
Bringing it back to Hunter Biden, it’s far more flagrant that he was paid for his influence. You have not disputed any of the facts I’ve cited, most especially that he himself acknowledged that he was hired based on his last name. That raises the question of whether Joe Biden took sufficient steps to mitigate against Hunter Biden’s influence, or decided to support his son’s interests. That doesn’t mean that there’s a criminal case against either Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. The question is whether that paid-for influence represents probable cause for a request for an investigation, as instigated by Trump. I think it does. The Democratic majority of the US House of Representatives obviously disagreed with me last year, but the Republican majority did agree with me. So now you’re facing the question of whether Biden should try to pursue a prosecution of Trump, which if I’m recalling correctly, is supposed to be a criminal charge of bribery. That seems to be a pretty weak criminal case to me, and to be a case of a hypothetical future President Biden slapping a manure patty on his face.
If you believe that someone getting a job because of who they are are who they know is corruption, I honestly wonder if you’ve ever had a job in your life.
Gigobuster already posted that transcript. Which statement in it constitutes a direct request for "a foreign government to manufacture false evidence?”
Or are you merely reiterating the garbage he’s already posted?
I notice that you’re not actually refuting my arguments with counter-arguments, but are merely disparaging them. Which means that your counter-arguments are weak and without basis. But since you brought up the hijack, why do you believe Nikki Haley was hired by Boeing? How does her appointment to the Boeing board of directors represent a gain for the Boeing corporation’s shareholders or stakeholders? I’m stating that there’s a level of conflict of interest in many appointments of US boards of directors, and that, without digging into the details, Nikki Haley’s governmental interests will conflict with her corporate interests. Is that criminal? No. If Boeing is in the future accused of being criminally corrupt at a level where the board should have been aware, would that implicate her for corruption? Yes. We’re essentially arguing a point of if a person accepts a position for which there only qualification is their outside connections, does that represent a corrupt act? I don’t believe it’s criminally corrupt; I do believe it’s somewhat morally corrupt; and should there be accusations of wrongdoing associated with that directorship, are those accusations worthy of investigation? Yes.
My sense of it is Trump was trying to manufacture an investigation that implies some wrongdoing that the other government had no intention of doing on their own because they did not think anyone did anything wrong.
My answer to the question in your bottom paragraph is “yes”. Regarding the investigation of the Bidens, I’m making a probable cause argument. Your fifth paragraph seems to assert that using influence to guide a foreign country’s investigations of corruption is illicit. Basically, I’m stating that Hunter Biden’s activities were illicit, which is not the same as illegal, but does meet a reasonable standard for probable cause to request an investigation.
Do you believe that “trying to manufacture an investigation that implies some wrongdoing that the other government had no intention of doing on their own because they did not think anyone did anything wrong” is a criminal offence"?
It might not be a criminal offence, but it certainly is "a foreign government to manufacture false evidence?” - either they are claiming there is an investigation when there is not, or they are creating an investigation knowing there is no criminal activity. In either case, that’s creating false evidence because it will be cited by the Orange one as proof that Biden is crooked.
She was elected to the board by the shareholders. They know their interests better than you do. Your lack of imagination does not constitute wrongdoing by anyone else.
Furthermore, you seem to have hugely flawed misunderstand of the terms corruption and conflict of interest.
Finally, Joe Biden didn’t do a single thing in Ukraine that was not 100% consistent with US foreign policy. There is absolutely nothing to investigate Joe Biden for. Zero, nada, nothing. You have asserted that Joe didn’t act honorably and that he was covered in manure, but you have failed, utterly, to even hint at a single thing he did wrong.