And now I’m honestly wondering how much, or how little, you know about boards of directors. I’ve already described how an ideal board of directors should work, and how most boards of directors fall short of that ideal. I’ve actually had several interactions with board directors of a few mid-sized corporations. They were personally very nice, apparently quite smart, and quite engaging in a social context. And that social interaction left me with zero qualification to assess their actual value as a board member. When I looked at the companies’ website afterwards, it was apparent that some had genuine industry experience and could be presumed to be qualified. For others, the impression was that they were a friend of the boss. I’m not saying that they were corrupt. But if they were in their position because they had influence with someone in government, and had no other qualification for their position, then yes I’d view them suspiciously. And since a major task of the board of directors is to review the actions of the corporation’s executive leadership, if their main claim to the directorship was that they knew someone, then I would view that as a potentially corrupt situation. If someone decided to investigate that situation, would I consider that an unfounded investigation? No.
Thing is that whoever told you that that was garbage is the one making the garbage. Even some Republicans that voted to let Trump off the hook said in effect that Trump’s request for an investigation of Biden was “improper and demonstrated very poor judgment." So, like Susan Collins concluded, Trump learned his lesson so, no need for his removal from office…
Well, the lesson he learned was that he was above the law.
A criminal request for a investigation and criminal manufacture of false evidence are separate things.
I’ve already stated that I agree that the threshold for indictment for the criminal charge of bribery in relation to the Ukraine bribery charges has been reached, although I think it’s far from a slam-dunk case.
From the posts is this thread, I actually believe the case is far weaker than my initial impression. There seemed to be a certainty from the first few dozen posts in this thread that Trump was obviously egregiously guilty of a criminal offence. I’m trying to find out what that obviously egregious crime is. Please cite the criminal case you believe Trump should be convicted of and the evidence that’s in the public knowledge that proves it’s indisputable that Trump is guilty.
To WS’s point, let us not forget the last time America elected the ne’er do well son of a major figure in American politics, one who got his college admissions, his jobs, and his Presidency all because of nepotism, and let us collectively agree to avoid the mistakes of 2000/2004 by not voting for Hunter Biden in 2036 or whenever.
Just for others, since it is not likely to see WS agreeing with it.
Swell article by Politifact there. Its first source is another Politifact article! Talk about the snake eating its own tail…
The second source, a Reuters article, has some fascinating attributions, such as:
Interviews with more than a dozen people, including executives and former prosecutors in Ukraine, paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues, corporate finance and strategy during a five-year term on the board, which ended in April of this year.
Biden never visited Ukraine for company business during that time, according to three of the people.
More than a dozen people…not one of whom went on the record.
Yawn
It’s not good enough that the shareholders saw value in putting awarding someone a board seat and voted accordingly, If Wrenching_Spanners lacks the imagination to see that value, the only other possibility is ‘corruption’.
There are quotes around corruption to indicate the vague and unspecified definition of corruption that Wrenching_Spanners uses, and not the standard definition of the word.
This is really weird that I’m someone who is a proponent of corporatism and capitalism and pretty right-wing as far as this message board is concerned, and I’m arguing against a corporate board appointment. My answer to your question is that if a politician is appointed to a corporation’s board when they possess no industry knowledge, they’re probably being appointed for their political knowledge. And while that political knowledge may involve a certain amount of expertise, it’s far more likely to involve personal connections.
Regarding Nikki Haley’s appointment to the Boeing board of directors, I believe that that was done in the interest of the executive leadership. I believe that Nikki Haley was hired based on who she knew, rather than her industry or positional expertise. So it was not in the interest of the Boeing shareholders or the other non-executive stakeholders. I believe that the lack of independence of boards of directors is a huge problem in corporate governments in many countries, but especially in the US.
The question then is if someone is being hired for their connections, rather than their qualifications, does it represent a corrupt situation? I don’t believe it’s a criminal situation. However, does it reach the threshold of probable cause that they’re involved in racketeering? I think so. None of the inane disagreements you’ve posted have contended against that probable cause argument.
And again, why the Bloody Hell was Hunter Biden hired besides any reason than his father? And what actions did Joe Biden take to mitigate that conflict of interest?
And again, your own cites answer this question. Quotes have been posted in this thread.
From an earlier post…
Your cite says, “Biden, then an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner, was hired to help Burisma with corporate governance best practices, and a consulting firm in which Biden is a partner was also retained by Burisma.”
You know this. It’s your cite that that has been quoted back to you.
Hunter Biden had elite corporate governance experience from his time as vice chair of the board of Amtrak. That’s from your cite as well. He also holds JD from Yale, which is unquestionably a qualification to weigh in on legal matters.
“Interviews with more than a dozen people, including executives and former prosecutors in Ukraine, paint a picture of a director who provided advice on legal issues, corporate finance and strategy during a five-year term on the board, which ended in April of this year.” That’s from a cite you posted too.
Read your own cites.
And, of course, he was also hired in part for his name. There is obvious PR value in having the Joe Biden’s kid on your board. There is absolutely no reason to believe that there is anything more to it than that.
Finally, you continue to dodge that Joe Biden never took a single action that was anything other than 100% consistent with US foreign policy. Even if Hunter Biden is the worst of the worst, which he clearly is not, Joe Biden didn’t do anything that even smells a bit funny.
Nothing. Not a hint of a glimmer of a bit of single thing that looks even mildly untoward. Your idea of probable cause for an investigation is a joke when you can’t even point to a single action that might have been a crime.
Great post.
I just wanted to add a couple more points.
It is difficult to understand the full implications of Trump’s actions towards Ukraine without understanding the extent of the corruption in Ukraine. Ukraine is widely considered to be the most corrupt country in the world. They routinely arrest and jail political opponents on trumped-up charges.
One of Trump’s 2016 campaign managers and key advisors, Paul Manafort,was an integral part of such a scheme and was convicted for a related financial fraud.
These deeply corrupt countries alway present a foreign relations problem. The corruption was baked into these companies —after the dissolution of the Communist government, the major businesses and industries all fell under the control of oligarchs, who are basically gangsters, and the government of these countries was founded on organized crime. Westerners who tried to do business in these countries were frequently defrauded in far-reaching scams that involved government authorities and the state legal and judicial systems. These scams frequently involved torture and murder as well as the theft of large amounts of money.
The US and other Western governments were trying to make Ukraine less corrupt, less allied with Russia and more closely allied with the western world. As part of that effort, they actively encouraged companies to install Westerners in their boards of directors.
If there was a legitimate reason to believe that an American citizen was involved in illegal business in another country, there is a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty in place. This allows American citizens to be brought to justice while protecting their civil rights. However, a legitimate law enforcement agency, such as the FBI, would need to review the evidence and agree that there is cause for an investigation for such an investigation to proceed. Of course, there was nothing there except some perjured testimony from corrupt Ukrainians and that testimony was recanted immediately after it came under scrutiny,
The actions that the US government took towards Burisma while enacting their stated foreign policy worked AGAINST the financial interests of Burisma - they were trying to fire a prosecutor that was in cahoots with the owners of Burisma and working to suppress an investigation.
Exactly this and this is where the whole caper falls apart.
Joe Biden didn’t do anything that helped Burisma. This was plainly obvious to everyone including the Trump team. That’s why they were so desperate for Zelinsky to announce an investigation. That would make it look there was something there even though they knew there wasn’t.
It is incredibly naive to think this.
Ukraine saw no reason to investigate Biden. So, when Trump asked them to investigate Biden and then used a carrot and a stick to pressure Ukraine to do that what do you think would happen?
Do you think Ukraine would open an investigation and, when asked by reporters why, they would say, “No reason, we have no evidence of wrongdoing, we just thought it was something we should do.” Or do you think it is more likely, given the carrot and stick Trump was using, that they’d say something like, “We have reason to believe Hunter Biden was involved in X, Y and Z.”
It’s kinda like saying a mob boss didn’t order a hit on a guy when he said, “Hey Sully, take care of that guy for me.” Do you really think the mob boss means for Sully to take him to dinner and a show?
My post is my cite!
Are you sure you’re a supporter of corporatism?
No. The word “corporatism” should have been a phrase like “the modern concept of corporations as businesses owned by shareholders where the shares can be exchanged in an open market”. I am a proponent of that phrase but not “the control of a state or organization by large interest groups” (google definition - I don’t think it’s linkable).
Thanks for pointing that out.
I am reading my cites. They present both sides of the argument on whether Hunter Biden was in a corrupt situation, and whether Joe Biden was stained by that corrupt situation. And the question is whether that stain was sufficient for President Trump to believe that he had probable cause to request an investigation into the Bidens’ activities in Ukraine. The cites make clear that there was a conflict of interest in Hunter Biden’s appointment to Burisma. Here’s another cite:
“WASHINGTON — A career State Department official told impeachment investigators this week that he raised concerns with a senior White House official in 2015 about the son of then-Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. holding a position on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.
But the warning from George P. Kent, then a State Department officer stationed in Kiev, was not acted on, according to two people familiar with Mr. Kent’s testimony. Mr. Kent, now of the State Department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, said he told the official that Hunter Biden’s position could look like a conflict of interest, given his father’s role, and would complicate American efforts to encourage Ukraine to clean up corruption.”
Thanks for trying to provide a counter-argument with facts. I agree that having a law degree from Yale is a significant achievement. I doubt that that degree provided any knowledge or insight into Ukrainian corporate governance, but it’s at least a point for your side of the argument. Of course Burisma could have hired someone among the tens of thousands of people more qualified in European corporate governance than Hunter Biden, some who might have actually shown up to visit the company. But at least you’re admitting “of course, he was also hired in part for his name.”
On the other hand, you’re arguing that his board experience with Amtrak was relevant. Hunter Biden was an unpaid board member who attended 43 meetings Hunter Biden didn’t make millions off Amtrak | AP News
and seems to have been nominated because he rode trains from Delaware to Washington DC. Oh, and his nominator was a family friend of Joe Biden.
- NOMINATIONS TO THE AMTRAK REFORM BOARD, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
See a pattern?
It’s not naive. You’re discussing separate criminal acts, The impeachment articles against Trump categorised those charges as separate acts. Those charges were abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The proponents of a Trump prosecution in this thread are making a weak argument that Trump was guilty of abuse of power, a charge that he was found not-guilty of by the Senate, but nevertheless may have some standing in a judicial court. Criminal manufacture of false evidence would apply to the second act.
So which US statute that you believe Trump violated by manufacturing evidence, and what is your reasoned, detailed basis for asserting that violation?
Nice post. Would you please explain why an evidently corrupt corporation in a country that, to use your words,“Ukraine is widely considered to be the most corrupt country in the world.” would hire the son of the US politician who was the flag-waver against Ukraine corruption?
I mentioned in the post that corporations in those countries were strongly encouraged by Western governments to put Westerners (Americans and Brits) on their boards. The thought was that by filling their boards of directors with people experienced with the Western systems of corporate governance, that these companies could eventually achieve legitimacy, or at least the appearance of legitimacy.
What is important towards this understanding is the knowledge that EVERY large corporation in Ukraine used to be a state owned business or industry. Shipyards, power plants, mining operations, banks, factories, media companies. The mechanisms that transferred these concerns to private individuals after the fall of communism were deeply corrupt and the oligarchs that own these concerns are deeply indebted to the political forces that transferred unimaginable wealth to them and constantly persecuted by the opposing political forces.
Probably the overreaching foreign policy aim is to turn Ukraine away from Russia and towards Western Europe and the US. The reason we don’t just cut those corrupt countries and companies loose to go their own corrupt way are many, but Ukraine’s geographical location makes it crucial to the energy security of Western Europe.
That said, I’m not incredibly sympathetic to Hunter Biden. Even though the US looked favorably upon individuals that tried to bring legitimacy to businesses in Ukraine and Russia, it’s still known to be a dangerous game. Businessmen are frequently framed in elaborate scams involving high level government and judicial officials - one such scam formed the basis for the Magnitsky Act sanctions.
If you are a reader and interested in this subject, pick up Bill Browder’s book RED NOTICE, the chilling story about how he lost everything in such a scam - a scam that resulted in the government sanctioned murder of his attorney.
This is why I found it so chilling that the President of the United States seemed to be encouraging Ukraine to pull one of those scams on Biden the Younger, especially given his association with Manafort who was instrumental in engineering the false prosecution and jailing of his client’s political opponent in Ukraine.
A few more things that wouldn’t fit in my above post.
I used the term “stated foreign policy” very deliberately. Such a thing does exist, it’s developed by our diplomats and experts and codified in policy papers. It’s an important tool in guarding against corruption and protecting our diplomats —for example, if a corrupt official accuses a diplomat of corruption because she won’t assist him in one of those “let’s jail my political enemy” scams, she would be protected.
This is why the new Republican theory that “US foreign policy is whatever serves the President’s self-interest today“ is so dangerous regardless of how much his self-interest aligns with US interests at that moment.
Boies Schiller Flexner is arguably the most prestigious law firm in the US. Someone with that credential on their resume is would probably be qualified to sit on any board, anywhere, based on that alone. Realistically speaking, a lot of board members have their jobs because they can attract clients and investment. It’s a sales job and performance is the prime qualification. If you can bring in money it doesn’t matter what’s on your resume — same if you can’t.