Thank you. I missed the stipulation offer. However, I suspect that once Stormy Daniels was on the stand, the prosecution took opportunities from her testimony to show Trump in a bad light, even if it wasn’t strictly relevant to the “falsification of business records” charge. I further suspect that the same thing will happen with Hunter Biden when they present evidence and testimony over where his alleged tax-evaded income came from.
Sure they did. That’s what happens when you make a bad decision at trial. Trump could have avoided the entire embarrassing spectacle if only he could have admitted he had sex with Ms. Daniels. That’s not the fault of the prosecution. If you’re going to force them to prove there was an affair, you can bet they’re going to do a bang-up job of it.
Totally agree that that was the actual purpose of Burisma hiring Hunter Biden. And probably why people paid him money post 2016.
Sure. And when Hunter Biden goes on trial for tax evasion, I’ll bet the prosecution does a “bang-up job” of showing where his alleged tax evasion income came from.
The part you’re ignoring is that the prosecution made a reasonable offer to stipulate to facts that were easily proven. That’s a regular, lawyerly thing to do. The prosecution wasn’t seeking to simply embarrass Trump.
Let’s see if the prosecution for Hunter Biden with respect to the failure to pay tax is as equitable. /s
I know that US law firms are similar, they have lawyers who argue cases and do the legwork, and other lawyers who specialize in attracting clients and managing relationships. They need both kinds to be successful.
I don’t know if Hunter was actively doing anything like that or was just kept around so that his name could attract people.
Agreed, probably.
Hunter also paid interest.
And more than that, news reports say he paid IRS penalties.
I’ll pay attention to the trial news and may change my mind, but it looks like he was already held accountable in paying those penalties.
Politically, I think it looks good for the Democrats if the Biden Justice Department isn’t going easy on his son. But regarding the indictments, I’m a lot more interested in deterring cocaine users from buying handguns than I am interested in people who were fined for not paying taxes, and paid the penalty, being punished some more.
If acquitted of tax evasion, will he get his penalties back? I guess not, but it seems like he should.
The point is, more than one thing can be true at once. Yes, his name is a big part of it, but being a Yale law graduate, and working for a high-profile law firm at the time of hiring is undoubtedly part of it too.
One of the assumptions many people have is that having a senior role in a company means you must be an expert in the primary industry of that company. And that’s broadly true…but not the board of directors.
Only a minority of directors are industry experts (something like 30% IIRC). They often sit on the board of multiple industries. Appointing a successful lawyer or banker with no experience in petrochemicals to be on the board of a petrochemical firm is not unusual at all.
Let me be clear: yes obviously the Biden name helped a lot, probably Hunter wouldn’t have got the job without it. But what many on the right try to allege, is that it was a pretend job and he was just there as a hook into American politics. When I would say he was qualified enough to do the job (bearing in mind what I said above), and the prestigious name is a nice thing to show off. It makes sense as a hire without any particular plan of influencing american politics.
Looks like the right can see the mote in Hunter’s eye and not the beams in Jared’s and Ivanka’s. Compared to Jared, Hunter is a model of transparency and good behavior.
So he didn’t file his taxes but he paid back what he was owed. Why prosecute? Plenty of people mess up their taxes, pay what they owe, and go on with their lives. Generally the Treasury Department would rather have you clear up your debt and keep on working and paying taxes than have you in jail making nothing.
Yep. My Bro worked as an IRS agent and I with the Treasury. Other than leaders of tax protest movements, and people who prepared tax protest returns- if you come in, admit you guilt and agree to pay up- you do not go to prison. No one does.
Agreed.
So as an exercise for other readers: Why the hell is Hunter being prosecuted? And further, will this mean that EVERYone else who has done the same thing, paid the taxes owed, paid interest and paid penalties will now be prosecuted? (Rhetorical question)
Probably similar to the reason he was working for Burisma; his last name is Biden.
I imagine a selective prosecution argument going all the way to the Supreme Court, whereupon the usual suspects will proceed to wipe their asses on the 14th Amendment. The slave states really hated that Amendment anyway.
Selective prosecution is inevitable and I think only illegal if for an impermissible reason, the number one being race.
30% may be wildly optimistic. As you’ve already pointed out, most board members are there because they have experience with corporate governance, finance/accounting, or corporate law, and because they have connections that can be of benefit to the company. Actual subject matter experts can be thin on the ground - many companies only have one or two, and some unwise ones have none.
Hunter Biden was an experienced corporate lawyer with previous board experience (Amtrak et alia), and he had access to a lot of influential people who weren’t his father. If you removed everyone like that from corporate boards, there’d be a lot of empty boardrooms across the world.
I’m not saying he was exceptional at his job; indeed, my point is the opposite. But then if we also removed mediocre board members who just got paid to show up occasionally and talk up the business to their influential friends, you’d likely clear out the rest of them.
Yep. Looking at the board of Burisma, Hunter was in good company; I’m not seeing any industry experts (although one or two of the Ukranians are hard to google).
They really needed Bruce Willis to put together a rag-tag team of oil well drillers.
Joking aside, they absolutely should have SMEs on the board, most corporations would benefit from that, but it’s not atypical to have none.
I think the overall responses here have been great. I just want to add my ‘canned’ precis – something I’ve had to use in response to countless comments (elsewhere) from HB detractors:
“Okay can I ask you then what was Hunter Biden’s credentials to work there?”
His Curriculum Vitae is online for all to see. It’s … formidable.
“Does he speak their language?”
English is generally viewed as the “language of commerce” worldwide. Where necessary, executives use interpreters.
“Did he go to college?”
Georgetown undergrad, Yale law.
“Had he ever worked for an energy company before?”
People are generally appointed to a company’s Board of Directors for WHAT they know, WHO they know, or a combination of the two. Hunter Biden was very well connected, even apart from his father. He’s also smart, trained, educated, and experienced, despite his personal demons.
Yes, it’s rarely a successful strategy. Number one is certainly race, but political allignment can be used as well. I imagine Trump is going to try this one.
While unqualified, I’d love to be the judge for the tax evasion trial.
Questioning the prosecution:
“Did Mr. Biden repay the delinquent taxes?”
“Yes, but…”
“Did Mr. Biden pay the interest on the delinquent taxes?”
“Yes, but…”
“Did Mr. Biden pay the penalties on the delinquent taxes?”
“Yes, but…”
“Do you generally pursue prosecution of defendants in these cases?”
“No, but…”
Case dismissed, your prosecution is BUTT.
/end wildly speculative day dream
I haven’t reviewed it but I don’t believe that it’s strange to have a board composed of people from other fields.
Bill Gates, for example, wouldn’t have had Steve Jobs on his board of directors. They’re competitors. And part of the function of a board is to give outside feedback, alternate viewpoints, and ask you the dumb questions that make you question your assumptions.
That said, having some random lawyer on your board does feel strange unless he’s totally loaded with money. That’s not Hunter.
On the other hand, as I understand it, he was effectively working as an investments/business developer who sort-of-just-happened-to-be a lawyer. So it might not have been too strange, if it felt like he was a key decision maker for an investment firm.