Talking to a mirror again?

BREAKING: House Oversight released a new memo showing the Bidens took millions from Russian, Ukrainian and Kazakh oligarchs. The committee has found more than $20 million in payments from foreign partners to the Biden family and its associates @DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/HrJAXD3ysp

— James Lynch (@jameslynch32) August 9, 2023

Why is the media disproportionately interested in Trump but not Biden? Isn't Biden the president?

Ivanka Trump got 18 trademarks from China & $100 million from the Saudis for her fund

Kushner got $2 billion from MBS, $1 billion from Qatar & $200 million from the UAE

Trump made a killing from hosting LIV & was funded by laundered Russian money

But sure “Biden is the prob”🙄

— Lindy Li (@lindyli) August 10, 2023

*Republicans giggle on their way to their way safe deposit boxes when they reflect on the fact Dems think they are scoring points here. Isn't being a felon, indicted or unindicted, a bonafide job requirement for Republican leadership?

*Do you really think China and the House of Saud are going to allow anyone but their stooge to be POTUS?
They got Big favors that didn't get completely repaid yet.

bearister said:

---

Ivanka Trump got 18 trademarks from China & $100 million from the Saudis for her fund

Kushner got $2 billion from MBS, $1 billion from Qatar & $200 million from the UAE

Trump made a killing from hosting LIV & was funded by laundered Russian money

But sure “Biden is the prob”🙄

— Lindy Li (@lindyli) August 10, 2023

*Republicans giggle on their way to their way safe deposit boxes when they reflect on the fact Dems think they are scoring points here. Isn't being a felon, indicted or unindicted, a bonafide job requirement for Republican leadership?

*Do you really think China and the House of Saud are going to allow anyone but their stooge to be POTUS?
They got Big favors that didn't get completely repaid yet.

---

First of all, how much corruption is OK?

Second of all, unlike payments made to Hunter, these were investments with only the management fee going directly to the Trumps. And unlike Hunter, they actually had existing funds and expertise before leveraging political connection. What did Hunter have? Were the foreign companies looking for how to optically function while on coke?

And Yes, Biden is the problem. Just because Trump also leveraged their connection does not make Biden not a problem. And if you are against corruption, you should be against corruption even in your own tribe.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Ivanka Trump got 18 trademarks from China & $100 million from the Saudis for her fund

Kushner got $2 billion from MBS, $1 billion from Qatar & $200 million from the UAE

Trump made a killing from hosting LIV & was funded by laundered Russian money

But sure “Biden is the prob”🙄

— Lindy Li (@lindyli) August 10, 2023

*Republicans giggle on their way to their way safe deposit boxes when they reflect on the fact Dems think they are scoring points here. Isn't being a felon, indicted or unindicted, a bonafide job requirement for Republican leadership?

*Do you really think China and the House of Saud are going to allow anyone but their stooge to be POTUS?
They got Big favors that didn't get completely repaid yet.

---

First of all, how much corruption is OK?

Second of all, unlike payments made to Hunter, these were investments with only the management fee going directly to the Trumps. And unlike Hunter, they actually had existing funds and expertise before leveraging political connection. What did Hunter have? Were the foreign companies looking for how to optically function while on coke?

And Yes, Biden is the problem. Just because Trump also leveraged their connection does not make Biden not a problem. And if you are against corruption, you should be against corruption even in your own tribe.

---

I think this should be a pretty easy bipartisan issue. We've relied far too much on "norms" to prevent corruption at the highest levels of our federal government and it's pretty clearly failing. We've seen the issue with family members for decades (Billy Carter, etc.) as well as former officials. I see it quite commonly in the legal industry - it can be quite lucrative to serve in an agency or in the executive branch and then go collect big checks for a law firm. The "expertise" is sometimes less attractive than the connections. I have on more than one occasion worked with a lawyer who was able to more or less pick up the phone to clear a roadblock - that sure sounds like corruption to me. One of my clients appointed a prominent former presidential candidate to its board because of his rolodex. This is pretty common - look at how Paul Ryan is doing these days.

Right now I see people complaining about Clarence Thomas and others defending by saying that the people taking him on luxury vacations or otherwise bribing him didn't have pending cases or that there was no evidence it impacted his decisions. EG no quid pro quo.

We see the exact same discussion with Hunter Biden (well slightly different because he wasn't in the government). Similarly for Kushner, Ivanka, etc.

Sadly, there is too much money to be made peddling influence in this country and far too little focus on actually doing anything about it. We passed the FCPA to address foreign corruption but have a clear gap in how we address domestic production. I'm not saying that I have the answer or legislation to propose, but that is what congress should be doing. I think if you spun Elizabeth Warren up with the right bipartisan team or non-corrupt politicians, they could do something about it.

But instead both sides continue to abuse the system for their financial well-being and people enable it by ignoring corruption that "their side" partakes in.

I would like to see legislation that would result in Hunter Biden, Jared Kushner and Clarence Thomas all in jail had they been doing the things that they have been accused of doing. I don't think that necessarily means that they have broken any laws yet, but there should be laws to prevent this abuse going forward.

---

You and I are aligned here.

But I do want to clarify that Hunter not being in government does not matter. If he was peddling influence and acting as a foreign agent in his dealings with his father, him not being government does not make it legal or anything less than corruption. And if Joe was receiving any of the financial benefits, that is the worst type of corruption.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Ivanka Trump got 18 trademarks from China & $100 million from the Saudis for her fund

Kushner got $2 billion from MBS, $1 billion from Qatar & $200 million from the UAE

Trump made a killing from hosting LIV & was funded by laundered Russian money

But sure “Biden is the prob”🙄

— Lindy Li (@lindyli) August 10, 2023

*Republicans giggle on their way to their way safe deposit boxes when they reflect on the fact Dems think they are scoring points here. Isn't being a felon, indicted or unindicted, a bonafide job requirement for Republican leadership?

*Do you really think China and the House of Saud are going to allow anyone but their stooge to be POTUS?
They got Big favors that didn't get completely repaid yet.

---

First of all, how much corruption is OK?

Second of all, unlike payments made to Hunter, these were investments with only the management fee going directly to the Trumps. And unlike Hunter, they actually had existing funds and expertise before leveraging political connection. What did Hunter have? Were the foreign companies looking for how to optically function while on coke?

And Yes, Biden is the problem. Just because Trump also leveraged their connection does not make Biden not a problem. And if you are against corruption, you should be against corruption even in your own tribe.

---

I think this should be a pretty easy bipartisan issue. We've relied far too much on "norms" to prevent corruption at the highest levels of our federal government and it's pretty clearly failing. We've seen the issue with family members for decades (Billy Carter, etc.) as well as former officials. I see it quite commonly in the legal industry - it can be quite lucrative to serve in an agency or in the executive branch and then go collect big checks for a law firm. The "expertise" is sometimes less attractive than the connections. I have on more than one occasion worked with a lawyer who was able to more or less pick up the phone to clear a roadblock - that sure sounds like corruption to me. One of my clients appointed a prominent former presidential candidate to its board because of his rolodex. This is pretty common - look at how Paul Ryan is doing these days.

Right now I see people complaining about Clarence Thomas and others defending by saying that the people taking him on luxury vacations or otherwise bribing him didn't have pending cases or that there was no evidence it impacted his decisions. EG no quid pro quo.

We see the exact same discussion with Hunter Biden (well slightly different because he wasn't in the government). Similarly for Kushner, Ivanka, etc.

Sadly, there is too much money to be made peddling influence in this country and far too little focus on actually doing anything about it. We passed the FCPA to address foreign corruption but have a clear gap in how we address domestic production. I'm not saying that I have the answer or legislation to propose, but that is what congress should be doing. I think if you spun Elizabeth Warren up with the right bipartisan team or non-corrupt politicians, they could do something about it.

But instead both sides continue to abuse the system for their financial well-being and people enable it by ignoring corruption that "their side" partakes in.

I would like to see legislation that would result in Hunter Biden, Jared Kushner and Clarence Thomas all in jail had they been doing the things that they have been accused of doing. I don't think that necessarily means that they have broken any laws yet, but there should be laws to prevent this abuse going forward.

---

You and I are aligned here.

But I do want to clarify that Hunter not being in government does not matter. If he was peddling influence and acting as a foreign agent in his dealings with his father, him not being government does not make it legal or anything less than corruption. And if Joe was receiving any of the financial benefits, that is the worst type of corruption.

---

The distinction I was making about Hunter not being in government is a technical one - we have to make the statutes apply to the right people. Right now I think FARA is most relevant to the relative of a politician acting as an agent of a foreign principal, but we've learned there isn't a whole lot of teeth to that regime. It's unclear that Hunter even violated FARA - is there any evidence he actually lobbied or did anything for the foreigners that gave him money?

A similar example could be Trump's hotel in DC. All of the foreigners who came to Trump hat in hand during his presidency knew they had to stay at his hotel to be in his good graces. Was there a Quid Pro Quo there? Of course not. It wasn't official government policy, it was just something people knew they had to do. This is how the mafia works and it's why RICO was created.

Obviously if Biden did anything as VP (or back when he was a senator) because of some financial scheme Hunter was tied up in, that would be corruption. Right now there really isn't even a hint of that happening. Much of this BS relates to the 4 years when Biden was out of office. Most of the accusations of what happened when he was VP were laughably false - like claims he demanded the firing of Shokin to help Hunter, when anyone with half a brain knows the opposite is true.

There just isn't any mechanism to hold people like Hunter accountable for trading based on their name. It's so common to prominent people and he's just an "influencer" (in today's parlance) by virtue of his family name. It's disgusting and pathetic and we should be able to do something about it, but we can't.

Public corruption by officials is a lot easier to address but we still are in need of a legal framework to do so. As many have pointed out, there is basically nothing we can do to prevent SCOTUS from pretty severe ethics breaches and former elected officials can pretty much do whatever they want as well.

---

You may be right, but I was thinking more along the lines of how leaders who choose to serve should put service ahead of their own enrichment.

Most likely, what Justice Thomas did was not illegal. But that is not stopping most folks here, including me, blasting him. Yet, people are way too technical and defensive when it comes to Hunter and Joe.

I think, as more is revealed, both Joe (enabling and enriching himself from Hunter) and Justice Thomas are revealing themselves to be scum, corrupt, and self-serving and do not deserve to serve again in high office.

So, I don't buy Trump as a reason to vote for Biden. I will just not vote for either.

Doesn't make me feel better having Joe in the office. And if what the country wants to offer me are sh*t and cr*p for dinner, then I will just walk away from the table.

1. Do me a favor, impeach, convict and imprison Joe Biden with enough lead time so the Dems can run a better candidate that exceeds the "lesser of two evils" standard;" and

2. You stated that with regard to Javanka's sweet House of Saud dealings "….…expertise before leveraging political connection."

Response:

Further Evidence Emerges the Saudis Did Not Pay Jared Kushner Billions Because They Thought He Was an Investing Genius | Vanity Fair


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/jared-kushner-affinity-partners-saudi-arabia-pitch-deck


"For one thing, as The Times noted, the panel that performs due diligence for the Saudi fund concluded Kushner's firm was a joke that management was "inexperience[d]," that the kingdom would be responsible for "the bulk of the investment and risk," that its fees were "excessive," and that the firm's operations were "unsatisfactory in all aspects." The panel warned that the country shouldn't give the former first son-in-law a dime. But then those grave, unequivocal warnings were mysteriously overridden by the fund's board, led by M.B.S…."

….. The spokesperson did not mention that Kushner's private sector work was strictly for companies owned by his father, or ones he bought with his father's money. Or that his most famous deal was the one in which he spent billions to acquire an aging midtown skyscraper on the eve of the financial crisis that became an albatross around the family business's neck, before being conveniently bailed out by Qatar."

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon (a beloved source of broken hearted, "burn it all down" Bernie babies and Biden critics) called White House senior adviser Ivanka Trump "dumb as a brick" in the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," by journalist Michael Wolff.

….and I know I read more than a few times that General Kelly didn't think Javanka had two brain cells between them that could be rubbed together to make a spark.

bearister said:

---

1. Do me a favor, impeach, convict and imprison Joe Biden with enough lead time so the Dems can run a better candidate that exceeds the "lesser of two evil" standard;" and

2. You stated that with regard to Javanka's sweet House of Saud dealings "….…expertise before leveraging political connection."

Response:

Further Evidence Emerges the Saudis Did Not Pay Jared Kushner Billions Because They Thought He Was an Investing Genius | Vanity Fair


https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/jared-kushner-affinity-partners-saudi-arabia-pitch-deck


"For one thing, as The Times noted, the panel that performs due diligence for the Saudi fund concluded Kushner's firm was a joke that management was "inexperience[d]," that the kingdom would be responsible for "the bulk of the investment and risk," that its fees were "excessive," and that the firm's operations were "unsatisfactory in all aspects." The panel warned that the country shouldn't give the former first son-in-law a dime. But then those grave, unequivocal warnings were mysteriously overridden by the fund's board, led by M.B.S…."

….. The spokesperson did not mention that Kushner's private sector work was strictly for companies owned by his father, or ones he bought with his father's money. Or that his most famous deal was the one in which he spent billions to acquire an aging midtown skyscraper on the eve of the financial crisis that became an albatross around the family business's neck, before being conveniently bailed out by Qatar."

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon (a beloved source of broken hearted, "burn it all down" Bernie babies and Biden critics) called White House senior adviser Ivanka Trump "dumb as a brick" in the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," by journalist Michael Wolff.

….and I know I read more than a few times that General Kelly didn't think Javanka had two brains between them that could be rubbed together to make a spark.

---

I don't disagree.

However, the billion was not paid to Kushner. It was an investment. He takes a management fee like most advisors but he is not getting all of the billion for himself.

Clear difference when we are talking about numbers. The numbers associated with Hunter are paid directly to him.

And as I stated, Hunter had absolutely no prior experience for what he was getting all that money for. At least, Jared had investment fund he managed (poorly) before so it wasn't created out of the blue just to pay him.

Both are examples of corruption but Hunter is more shameless.

BREAKING: Merrick Garland appoints US Attorney for Delaware as special counsel to investigate Hunter Bidenhttps://t.co/SIzSwmQxLg

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 11, 2023

The Special Counsel on Hunter is a total sham. They're trying to judge-shop to a different jurisdiction bc the one in Delaware rejected the sweetheart deal

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 11, 2023

BREAKING: AG Garland appoints David Weiss as Special Counsel into investigation of Hunter Biden crimes. The same David Weiss who gave Hunter Biden 100% immunity plea deal. LOL.

Democrats say Republicans are ridiculous for going after Hunter Biden who has no position in government. Why then are Democrats going all out to protect him?

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Ivanka Trump got 18 trademarks from China & $100 million from the Saudis for her fund

Kushner got $2 billion from MBS, $1 billion from Qatar & $200 million from the UAE

Trump made a killing from hosting LIV & was funded by laundered Russian money

But sure “Biden is the prob”🙄

— Lindy Li (@lindyli) August 10, 2023

*Republicans giggle on their way to their way safe deposit boxes when they reflect on the fact Dems think they are scoring points here. Isn't being a felon, indicted or unindicted, a bonafide job requirement for Republican leadership?

*Do you really think China and the House of Saud are going to allow anyone but their stooge to be POTUS?
They got Big favors that didn't get completely repaid yet.

---

First of all, how much corruption is OK?

Second of all, unlike payments made to Hunter, these were investments with only the management fee going directly to the Trumps. And unlike Hunter, they actually had existing funds and expertise before leveraging political connection. What did Hunter have? Were the foreign companies looking for how to optically function while on coke?

And Yes, Biden is the problem. Just because Trump also leveraged their connection does not make Biden not a problem. And if you are against corruption, you should be against corruption even in your own tribe.

---

I think this should be a pretty easy bipartisan issue. We've relied far too much on "norms" to prevent corruption at the highest levels of our federal government and it's pretty clearly failing. We've seen the issue with family members for decades (Billy Carter, etc.) as well as former officials. I see it quite commonly in the legal industry - it can be quite lucrative to serve in an agency or in the executive branch and then go collect big checks for a law firm. The "expertise" is sometimes less attractive than the connections. I have on more than one occasion worked with a lawyer who was able to more or less pick up the phone to clear a roadblock - that sure sounds like corruption to me. One of my clients appointed a prominent former presidential candidate to its board because of his rolodex. This is pretty common - look at how Paul Ryan is doing these days.

Right now I see people complaining about Clarence Thomas and others defending by saying that the people taking him on luxury vacations or otherwise bribing him didn't have pending cases or that there was no evidence it impacted his decisions. EG no quid pro quo.

We see the exact same discussion with Hunter Biden (well slightly different because he wasn't in the government). Similarly for Kushner, Ivanka, etc.

Sadly, there is too much money to be made peddling influence in this country and far too little focus on actually doing anything about it. We passed the FCPA to address foreign corruption but have a clear gap in how we address domestic production. I'm not saying that I have the answer or legislation to propose, but that is what congress should be doing. I think if you spun Elizabeth Warren up with the right bipartisan team or non-corrupt politicians, they could do something about it.

But instead both sides continue to abuse the system for their financial well-being and people enable it by ignoring corruption that "their side" partakes in.

I would like to see legislation that would result in Hunter Biden, Jared Kushner and Clarence Thomas all in jail had they been doing the things that they have been accused of doing. I don't think that necessarily means that they have broken any laws yet, but there should be laws to prevent this abuse going forward.

---

You and I are aligned here.

But I do want to clarify that Hunter not being in government does not matter. If he was peddling influence and acting as a foreign agent in his dealings with his father, him not being government does not make it legal or anything less than corruption. And if Joe was receiving any of the financial benefits, that is the worst type of corruption.

---

The distinction I was making about Hunter not being in government is a technical one - we have to make the statutes apply to the right people. Right now I think FARA is most relevant to the relative of a politician acting as an agent of a foreign principal, but we've learned there isn't a whole lot of teeth to that regime. It's unclear that Hunter even violated FARA - is there any evidence he actually lobbied or did anything for the foreigners that gave him money?

A similar example could be Trump's hotel in DC. All of the foreigners who came to Trump hat in hand during his presidency knew they had to stay at his hotel to be in his good graces. Was there a Quid Pro Quo there? Of course not. It wasn't official government policy, it was just something people knew they had to do. This is how the mafia works and it's why RICO was created.

Obviously if Biden did anything as VP (or back when he was a senator) because of some financial scheme Hunter was tied up in, that would be corruption. Right now there really isn't even a hint of that happening. Much of this BS relates to the 4 years when Biden was out of office. Most of the accusations of what happened when he was VP were laughably false - like claims he demanded the firing of Shokin to help Hunter, when anyone with half a brain knows the opposite is true.

There just isn't any mechanism to hold people like Hunter accountable for trading based on their name. It's so common to prominent people and he's just an "influencer" (in today's parlance) by virtue of his family name. It's disgusting and pathetic and we should be able to do something about it, but we can't.

Public corruption by officials is a lot easier to address but we still are in need of a legal framework to do so. As many have pointed out, there is basically nothing we can do to prevent SCOTUS from pretty severe ethics breaches and former elected officials can pretty much do whatever they want as well.

---

You may be right, but I was thinking more along the lines of how leaders who choose to serve should put service ahead of their own enrichment.

Most likely, what Justice Thomas did was not illegal. But that is not stopping most folks here, including me, blasting him. Yet, people are way too technical and defensive when it comes to Hunter and Joe.

I think, as more is revealed, both Joe (enabling and enriching himself from Hunter) and Justice Thomas are revealing themselves to be scum, corrupt, and self-serving and do not deserve to serve again in high office.

So, I don't buy Trump as a reason to vote for Biden. I will just not vote for either.

Doesn't make me feel better having Joe in the office. And if what the country wants to offer me are sh*t and cr*p for dinner, then I will just walk away from the table.

---

I'm going to speak to the narrative of the Joe Biden "scandal". You only loosely touch on this but I want to expand a bit based on what other people are saying. If you look at the conservative media narrative there are a number of points that don't make sense.

First is the notion that he's some sort of criminal mastermind as well as having eleventy degree dementia. Is he a bumbling old fool or is he the patriarch of a crime family? It's a lot easier to connect the dots with Trump because he is so clearly acting like a mob boss - presumably learned from working with them and Roy Cohn for decades. There's also the fact that with Trump there are oodles of primary sources (like his call with Raffensberger) where we see him in action - and he acts like the corrupt moron his critics claim he is.

There is nothing like that, to date, with Joe. As far as I can tell there is like one alleged email reference to him which has never actually been traced back to Joe.

Let's assume for a minute that he really is corrupt and the evidence is out there. Why would he let his DOJ investigate him? Why hasn't he pardoned Hunter and squashed everything? Why allow another special counsel?

Trump pardoned Bannon, Stone, Kushner's evil dad, Michael Flynn and others. Trump and his GOP enablers claimed he was the "chief law enforcement officer" of the land and could essentially do whatever he wanted with the justice department - they told us the very idea of an independent justice department was invalid and unnecessary.

By all credible accounts, Biden hasn't meddled with Merrick Garland and the DOJ. He hasn't installed loyalists, hasn't reached down to find corrupt officials who he can elevate to do his bidding (the way Trump did), didn't fire Garland for doing his job (the way Trump fired Sessions), etc.

My sense is that Biden's biggest crime is failing to exercise caution in dealing with his dirtbag son Hunter in the aftermath of Beau's death. I wouldn't wish that on anyone and hope I never have to experience that, but a lot of the shenanigans seem to have occurred in that timeframe.

I'm open to a reasonable investigation into Joe and would hope there is bipartisan agreement that he should be punished if he is found to have engaged in real corruption. The sort of bipartisan agreement we will never have with Trump because the entire GOP has enabled him and will never do anything to address. What I think will really happen with Joe is that the GOP will continue to desperately investigate (like 11x Benghazi) and will claim corruption (like they are now) even in the total absence of any evidence.

What we've seen from the GOP has been absolutely pathetic to date on Joe Biden. The number of false and misleading claims coming out of the "weaponization" committee is a travesty and it's only going to harm our country. Not that the people involve have shown any interest in actually helping the country rather than furthering their pathetic careers.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

If the judge that rejected the deal is from Delaware, Hunter Biden is from Delaware and the US Attourney from Delaware is on the case, how is it venue shopping to a different jurisdiction?

---

Because they are making moves to get away from Delaware,, after the Delaware just rejected giving him the immunity plea deal/gift.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Ivanka Trump got 18 trademarks from China & $100 million from the Saudis for her fund

Kushner got $2 billion from MBS, $1 billion from Qatar & $200 million from the UAE

Trump made a killing from hosting LIV & was funded by laundered Russian money

But sure “Biden is the prob”🙄

— Lindy Li (@lindyli) August 10, 2023

*Republicans giggle on their way to their way safe deposit boxes when they reflect on the fact Dems think they are scoring points here. Isn't being a felon, indicted or unindicted, a bonafide job requirement for Republican leadership?

*Do you really think China and the House of Saud are going to allow anyone but their stooge to be POTUS?
They got Big favors that didn't get completely repaid yet.

---

First of all, how much corruption is OK?

Second of all, unlike payments made to Hunter, these were investments with only the management fee going directly to the Trumps. And unlike Hunter, they actually had existing funds and expertise before leveraging political connection. What did Hunter have? Were the foreign companies looking for how to optically function while on coke?

And Yes, Biden is the problem. Just because Trump also leveraged their connection does not make Biden not a problem. And if you are against corruption, you should be against corruption even in your own tribe.

---

I think this should be a pretty easy bipartisan issue. We've relied far too much on "norms" to prevent corruption at the highest levels of our federal government and it's pretty clearly failing. We've seen the issue with family members for decades (Billy Carter, etc.) as well as former officials. I see it quite commonly in the legal industry - it can be quite lucrative to serve in an agency or in the executive branch and then go collect big checks for a law firm. The "expertise" is sometimes less attractive than the connections. I have on more than one occasion worked with a lawyer who was able to more or less pick up the phone to clear a roadblock - that sure sounds like corruption to me. One of my clients appointed a prominent former presidential candidate to its board because of his rolodex. This is pretty common - look at how Paul Ryan is doing these days.

Right now I see people complaining about Clarence Thomas and others defending by saying that the people taking him on luxury vacations or otherwise bribing him didn't have pending cases or that there was no evidence it impacted his decisions. EG no quid pro quo.

We see the exact same discussion with Hunter Biden (well slightly different because he wasn't in the government). Similarly for Kushner, Ivanka, etc.

Sadly, there is too much money to be made peddling influence in this country and far too little focus on actually doing anything about it. We passed the FCPA to address foreign corruption but have a clear gap in how we address domestic production. I'm not saying that I have the answer or legislation to propose, but that is what congress should be doing. I think if you spun Elizabeth Warren up with the right bipartisan team or non-corrupt politicians, they could do something about it.

But instead both sides continue to abuse the system for their financial well-being and people enable it by ignoring corruption that "their side" partakes in.

I would like to see legislation that would result in Hunter Biden, Jared Kushner and Clarence Thomas all in jail had they been doing the things that they have been accused of doing. I don't think that necessarily means that they have broken any laws yet, but there should be laws to prevent this abuse going forward.

---

You and I are aligned here.

But I do want to clarify that Hunter not being in government does not matter. If he was peddling influence and acting as a foreign agent in his dealings with his father, him not being government does not make it legal or anything less than corruption. And if Joe was receiving any of the financial benefits, that is the worst type of corruption.

---

The distinction I was making about Hunter not being in government is a technical one - we have to make the statutes apply to the right people. Right now I think FARA is most relevant to the relative of a politician acting as an agent of a foreign principal, but we've learned there isn't a whole lot of teeth to that regime. It's unclear that Hunter even violated FARA - is there any evidence he actually lobbied or did anything for the foreigners that gave him money?

A similar example could be Trump's hotel in DC. All of the foreigners who came to Trump hat in hand during his presidency knew they had to stay at his hotel to be in his good graces. Was there a Quid Pro Quo there? Of course not. It wasn't official government policy, it was just something people knew they had to do. This is how the mafia works and it's why RICO was created.

Obviously if Biden did anything as VP (or back when he was a senator) because of some financial scheme Hunter was tied up in, that would be corruption. Right now there really isn't even a hint of that happening. Much of this BS relates to the 4 years when Biden was out of office. Most of the accusations of what happened when he was VP were laughably false - like claims he demanded the firing of Shokin to help Hunter, when anyone with half a brain knows the opposite is true.

There just isn't any mechanism to hold people like Hunter accountable for trading based on their name. It's so common to prominent people and he's just an "influencer" (in today's parlance) by virtue of his family name. It's disgusting and pathetic and we should be able to do something about it, but we can't.

Public corruption by officials is a lot easier to address but we still are in need of a legal framework to do so. As many have pointed out, there is basically nothing we can do to prevent SCOTUS from pretty severe ethics breaches and former elected officials can pretty much do whatever they want as well.

---

You may be right, but I was thinking more along the lines of how leaders who choose to serve should put service ahead of their own enrichment.

Most likely, what Justice Thomas did was not illegal. But that is not stopping most folks here, including me, blasting him. Yet, people are way too technical and defensive when it comes to Hunter and Joe.

I think, as more is revealed, both Joe (enabling and enriching himself from Hunter) and Justice Thomas are revealing themselves to be scum, corrupt, and self-serving and do not deserve to serve again in high office.

So, I don't buy Trump as a reason to vote for Biden. I will just not vote for either.

Doesn't make me feel better having Joe in the office. And if what the country wants to offer me are sh*t and cr*p for dinner, then I will just walk away from the table.

---

I'm going to speak to the narrative of the Joe Biden "scandal". You only loosely touch on this but I want to expand a bit based on what other people are saying. If you look at the conservative media narrative there are a number of points that don't make sense.

First is the notion that he's some sort of criminal mastermind as well as having eleventy degree dementia. Is he a bumbling old fool or is he the patriarch of a crime family? It's a lot easier to connect the dots with Trump because he is so clearly acting like a mob boss - presumably learned from working with them and Roy Cohn for decades. There's also the fact that with Trump there are oodles of primary sources (like his call with Raffensberger) where we see him in action - and he acts like the corrupt moron his critics claim he is.

There is nothing like that, to date, with Joe. As far as I can tell there is like one alleged email reference to him which has never actually been traced back to Joe.

Let's assume for a minute that he really is corrupt and the evidence is out there. Why would he let his DOJ investigate him? Why hasn't he pardoned Hunter and squashed everything? Why allow another special counsel?

Trump pardoned Bannon, Stone, Kushner's evil dad, Michael Flynn and others. Trump and his GOP enablers claimed he was the "chief law enforcement officer" of the land and could essentially do whatever he wanted with the justice department - they told us the very idea of an independent justice department was invalid and unnecessary.

By all credible accounts, Biden hasn't meddled with Merrick Garland and the DOJ. He hasn't installed loyalists, hasn't reached down to find corrupt officials who he can elevate to do his bidding (the way Trump did), didn't fire Garland for doing his job (the way Trump fired Sessions), etc.

My sense is that Biden's biggest crime is failing to exercise caution in dealing with his dirtbag son Hunter in the aftermath of Beau's death. I wouldn't wish that on anyone and hope I never have to experience that, but a lot of the shenanigans seem to have occurred in that timeframe.

I'm open to a reasonable investigation into Joe and would hope there is bipartisan agreement that he should be punished if he is found to have engaged in real corruption. The sort of bipartisan agreement we will never have with Trump because the entire GOP has enabled him and will never do anything to address. What I think will really happen with Joe is that the GOP will continue to desperately investigate (like 11x Benghazi) and will claim corruption (like they are now) even in the total absence of any evidence.

What we've seen from the GOP has been absolutely pathetic to date on Joe Biden. The number of false and misleading claims coming out of the "weaponization" committee is a travesty and it's only going to harm our country. Not that the people involve have shown any interest in actually helping the country rather than furthering their pathetic careers.

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

---

I think you know that a lot of governance principles would apply even across borders. Burisma wasn't a tiny company - reportedly revenue was in the hundreds of millions - and they were dealing with a corruption scandal, so it's not insane for them to bring on an American with exceptional credentials (he went to Yale law school, no slouch), worked at a prominent law firm, had investment experience, and had a nice last name. I've seen board members at smaller US companies make more money. I think you have as well.

He wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been introduced by his prominent friend Devon Archer, so there are a lot of reasons I wasn't asked to serve on Burisma's board. Back then people didn't know he was a degenerate scumbag tax cheat either, so he probably had more of a halo effect than we imagine now.

I'm not saying that Burisma's appointment of Hunter was the product of a meritocracy. You know that I don't believe that there is enough meritocracy in this world and that we have both seen connected people reap the rewards. There is nothing new here and the only thing that makes Hunter unique is that he happens to be Joe Biden's scumbag kid and that he has made a number of obvious horrible mistakes which have come back to bite him.

---

I don't know what you mean. Most of the governance requirements for my public clients were based on Delaware corporation laws, Delaware case law, NYSE listing standards, and charter documents. We had local counsel manage the laws for our foreign subsidiaries because the requirements, from in person meetings, residency requirements, etc. were so different. I would never serve on a board of a foreign corporation based on my governance expertise. I cannot believe someone as experienced as you with so much public company experience just wrote that.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

---

I think you know that a lot of governance principles would apply even across borders. Burisma wasn't a tiny company - reportedly revenue was in the hundreds of millions - and they were dealing with a corruption scandal, so it's not insane for them to bring on an American with exceptional credentials (he went to Yale law school, no slouch), worked at a prominent law firm, had investment experience, and had a nice last name. I've seen board members at smaller US companies make more money. I think you have as well.

He wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been introduced by his prominent friend Devon Archer, so there are a lot of reasons I wasn't asked to serve on Burisma's board. Back then people didn't know he was a degenerate scumbag tax cheat either, so he probably had more of a halo effect than we imagine now.

I'm not saying that Burisma's appointment of Hunter was the product of a meritocracy. You know that I don't believe that there is enough meritocracy in this world and that we have both seen connected people reap the rewards. There is nothing new here and the only thing that makes Hunter unique is that he happens to be Joe Biden's scumbag kid and that he has made a number of obvious horrible mistakes which have come back to bite him.

---

I don't know what you mean. Most of the governance requirements for my public clients were based on Delaware corporation laws, Delaware case law, NYSE listing standards, and charter documents. We had local counsel manage the laws for our foreign subsidiaries because the requirements, from in person meetings, residency requirements, etc. were so different. I would never serve on a board of a foreign corporation based on my governance expertise. I cannot believe someone as experienced as you with so much public company experience just wrote that.

---

I don't know why you are choosing to take a limited the field of governance. Burisma was a private company so I have no idea why you are talking about listing standards. But more importantly, there are governance principles like accountability, transparency, risk management etc, that you implement through business processes. Surely you could bring your self-evident experience to bear with a foreign company (particularly one in a developing country like Ukraine) even if you don't know how many times you need to clap your hands to adjourn a board meeting or what the name of the form is to appoint directors.

Reports of Hunter's role on the board sound like pretty typical director duties that someone with his background (and impeccable academic credentials - YLS!).

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate here but your hyperbolic arguments don't really make a lot of sense. I think if you strip away all of the unproven allegations against him, this isn't outrageous. Any more so than Paul Ryan serving on the board of Fox and joining a PE firm based entirely on his Rolodex or Al Gore being on the board of Apple (he didn't actually invent the internet).

---

I'm sorry but maybe your experience and my experience are different. Who seeks transparency as a board skill? Accountability? I have attended many board meetings in private practice, led N&G Committee as executive champion as GC, and was on board of private company as an investor and currently serve on a public board, including as chair of the N&G committee. The corporate governance are not what you describe. There is risk management, which is a skillset not from governance lawyer but from CEO / CFO roles. No way we would ever consider a foreign attorney to serve on a board because of their governance practice. Your description is so removed from my actual experience. Did you see generally see appointment of foreign attorneys in you PE experience? Lawyers generally are not favored on private or public boards but definitely not foreign attorneys. They are generally CEO, CFO or marketing/CIO. The only reason I am on a board is because I represented them in practice and is close to the chairman. How many boards have you worked with? Maybe more limited since you were primarily in M&A?

---

The fact that you as an American lawyer in one of the strongest corporate governance regimes in the world wouldn't think of hiring a foreign lawyer to your board kind of proves the point doesn't it?

Doesn't sound like your experience (or mine) is relevant to a Ukrainian company who was under investigation before they hired Hunter (and hired him in part to help rehab their image). I'm assuming they didn't know he would take the money and spend it on hookers and meth and that their worst scandal would be appointing him to their board.

It seems like all of your responses today are based exclusively on your personal experience and that you and I have different ways of evaluating situations. I'm not claiming that Hunter was the best person in the world to clean up Burisma, but I do think it passes the sniff test.

You seem to be saying that since you would never do it for your American companies and that you think Hunter had zero capabilities (even with a degree from Yale law school and numerous other accomplishments). I'm just saying that Hunter's resume (with his last name) doesn't preclude Burisma from having appointed him to the board in good faith. I have no actual knowledge of Burisma or what Hunter actually did there or anything else.

If you told us that you were friends with the son of a prominent senator who went to law school with you, worked at your fancy law firm, worked at your fancy hedge fund, started his own VC fund and subsequently was appointed to a foreign corporation's board - I think we would all say "yup, that sounds like how the world currently works."

For what it's worth, there are a lot of people trying to change the way the world works to make it more fair or meritocratic. I would like my children to grow up in a more fair world, even if it means they won't get some of the benefits that Hunter had.

Honestly I don't know why you think it's that complicated.

---

Surprised more US lawyers are not being sought after by foreign corporations for their governance skills. My network is pretty broad and I know zero.

That is why it's strange. I was in the profession for decades and that is my experience. If it's relevant to your experience, do you not give weight to your experience?

Again - zero folks in my networks of Ivy League trained lawyers who were hired to serve as board members of a foreign corporation because of their US trained governance skill.

No way I would say - yup that's how it works.

Now if he was peddling influence because of his father's role as a VP and ability to use his connect to his father to benefit the foreign corporation, then that is peddling corruption. Imagine how tightly FCPA is applied. You don't think it's corruption going the other way with that kind of payment? Imagine a Us company hiring a foreign government official's son when they have business with the government. DOJ would come down so hard so quickly for FCPA violation. But you think this is just normal when it goes the other way?

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

---

Unit2 defending Hunter's "credentials' is just the latest example of how he can never unconditionally criticize his own tribe. He just can't bring himself to do it (at least not on this board). This is the same guy who claims that Joe Biden is not mentally diminished and is one of the smartest presidents of his lifetime.

"Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative" is laughable. If that's the standard, then he shouldn't have one bad thing to say about Jared Kushner or for that matter any of the Trump kids.

Literally every single one of Hunter's credentials (I won't say accomplishments) can be traced directly to Joe and his political power. First job at MBNA (Joe's biggest campaign donor), Department of Commerce, director at Amtrak, hired as "of counsel" at Boies Schiller (big dem firm), and then of course all the influence peddling.

At the same time, there is not a single notable accomplishment Hunter can point to in his professional life. He's excelled at nothing.

Even Hunter himself admits that he was hired at Burisma despite having no experience in the energy field and the he was hired due to his last name. Hunter admits that; but Unit2 cannot.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/a35y9k/hunter-biden-admits-his-last-name-has-opened-basically-every-door-for-him

You're wasting your time. You're debating with someone who demonstrably has no principles other than what advances his partisan preferences. He does know better, but still can't "judge fairly".

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

---

I think you know that a lot of governance principles would apply even across borders. Burisma wasn't a tiny company - reportedly revenue was in the hundreds of millions - and they were dealing with a corruption scandal, so it's not insane for them to bring on an American with exceptional credentials (he went to Yale law school, no slouch), worked at a prominent law firm, had investment experience, and had a nice last name. I've seen board members at smaller US companies make more money. I think you have as well.

He wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been introduced by his prominent friend Devon Archer, so there are a lot of reasons I wasn't asked to serve on Burisma's board. Back then people didn't know he was a degenerate scumbag tax cheat either, so he probably had more of a halo effect than we imagine now.

I'm not saying that Burisma's appointment of Hunter was the product of a meritocracy. You know that I don't believe that there is enough meritocracy in this world and that we have both seen connected people reap the rewards. There is nothing new here and the only thing that makes Hunter unique is that he happens to be Joe Biden's scumbag kid and that he has made a number of obvious horrible mistakes which have come back to bite him.

---

I don't know what you mean. Most of the governance requirements for my public clients were based on Delaware corporation laws, Delaware case law, NYSE listing standards, and charter documents. We had local counsel manage the laws for our foreign subsidiaries because the requirements, from in person meetings, residency requirements, etc. were so different. I would never serve on a board of a foreign corporation based on my governance expertise. I cannot believe someone as experienced as you with so much public company experience just wrote that.

---

I don't know why you are choosing to take a limited the field of governance. Burisma was a private company so I have no idea why you are talking about listing standards. But more importantly, there are governance principles like accountability, transparency, risk management etc, that you implement through business processes. Surely you could bring your self-evident experience to bear with a foreign company (particularly one in a developing country like Ukraine) even if you don't know how many times you need to clap your hands to adjourn a board meeting or what the name of the form is to appoint directors.

Reports of Hunter's role on the board sound like pretty typical director duties that someone with his background (and impeccable academic credentials - YLS!).

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate here but your hyperbolic arguments don't really make a lot of sense. I think if you strip away all of the unproven allegations against him, this isn't outrageous. Any more so than Paul Ryan serving on the board of Fox and joining a PE firm based entirely on his Rolodex or Al Gore being on the board of Apple (he didn't actually invent the internet).

---

I'm sorry but maybe your experience and my experience are different. Who seeks transparency as a board skill? Accountability? I have attended many board meetings in private practice, led N&G Committee as executive champion as GC, and was on board of private company as an investor and currently serve on a public board, including as chair of the N&G committee. The corporate governance are not what you describe. There is risk management, which is a skillset not from governance lawyer but from CEO / CFO roles. No way we would ever consider a foreign attorney to serve on a board because of their governance practice. Your description is so removed from my actual experience. Did you see generally see appointment of foreign attorneys in you PE experience? Lawyers generally are not favored on private or public boards but definitely not foreign attorneys. They are generally CEO, CFO or marketing/CIO. The only reason I am on a board is because I represented them in practice and is close to the chairman. How many boards have you worked with? Maybe more limited since you were primarily in M&A?

---

The fact that you as an American lawyer in one of the strongest corporate governance regimes in the world wouldn't think of hiring a foreign lawyer to your board kind of proves the point doesn't it?

Doesn't sound like your experience (or mine) is relevant to a Ukrainian company who was under investigation before they hired Hunter (and hired him in part to help rehab their image). I'm assuming they didn't know he would take the money and spend it on hookers and meth and that their worst scandal would be appointing him to their board.

It seems like all of your responses today are based exclusively on your personal experience and that you and I have different ways of evaluating situations. I'm not claiming that Hunter was the best person in the world to clean up Burisma, but I do think it passes the sniff test.

You seem to be saying that since you would never do it for your American companies and that you think Hunter had zero capabilities (even with a degree from Yale law school and numerous other accomplishments). I'm just saying that Hunter's resume (with his last name) doesn't preclude Burisma from having appointed him to the board in good faith. I have no actual knowledge of Burisma or what Hunter actually did there or anything else.

If you told us that you were friends with the son of a prominent senator who went to law school with you, worked at your fancy law firm, worked at your fancy hedge fund, started his own VC fund and subsequently was appointed to a foreign corporation's board - I think we would all say "yup, that sounds like how the world currently works."

For what it's worth, there are a lot of people trying to change the way the world works to make it more fair or meritocratic. I would like my children to grow up in a more fair world, even if it means they won't get some of the benefits that Hunter had.

Honestly I don't know why you think it's that complicated.

---

Surprised more US lawyers are not being sought after by foreign corporations for their governance skills. My network is pretty broad and I know zero.

That is why it's strange. I was in the profession for decades and that is my experience. If it's relevant to your experience, do you not give weight to your experience?

Again - zero folks in my networks of Ivy League trained lawyers who were hired to serve as board members because of their US trained governance skill.

No way I would say - yup that's how it works.

Now if he was peddling influence because of his father's role as a VP and ability to use his connect to his father to benefit the foreign corporation, then that is peddling corruption.

---

We seem to be getting into counter-factual territory. Devon Archer pulled Hunter onto the Burisma board. He wasn't hired off the street because Burisma had a headhunter looking for a specific profile. Like many well-connected people, he got a sweet gig based on his unearned privilege.

As for peddling influence, Archer testified that Hunter did trade on the "illusion" of access to his father, but that he actually had none.

Here's a WaPo opinion piece about this:

Quote:

---

Archer explained that his work for Burisma was centered on finding external financing for the then-young company to expand. Hunter Biden also helped set up connections in Washington, helping "set Burisma up with [legal firm] Boies Schiller, with Blue Star Group, with the DHS lobbyists, with a whole government affairs and lobbying team in D.C."


He said that Biden's last name helped and that Hunter Biden sought to give the impression he was leveraging Joe Biden in his role. But he also testified that Hunter Biden knew this was deceptive. Archer confirmed an email in which Hunter Biden discussed how to frame an announced trip by the then-vice president to Ukraine.

"The announcement of my guy's" his father's "upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking but what he will say and do is out of our hands," the email read. "In other words, it could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation."

This distills Archer's broader point: Hunter Biden wanted to give the impression he could bend Joe Biden's will but, in private conversation, he said he couldn't.

---

I read that and think - that's pretty typical and it happens all of the time with well-connected people.

There is nothing there that implicated Joe Biden whatsoever and that's about the closest the GOP has come to proving their case. In fact, they think Devon Archer has been their star witness lol.

Again, the fact that you don't have this personal experience doesn't mean that Joe Biden is corrupt.

Unless and until we see evidence of actual corruption, I'm far more concerned about the type of corruption that I saw every day when I was a practicing lawyer - which is the revolving door of people leaving federal agencies for prominent private sector jobs where they leverage their connections. I can come up with dozens of examples of people I've worked with or come into contact with who fit that profile. And absolutely no one is surprised when it happens. I'm not even referring to defense contractors. If you look at prominent fintech companies they are thick with these people. Facebook's first GC (nice guy, I'm not dogging him) was a white house lawyer for Dubya. There is basically a never ending list of these people and it goes well beyond the legal types I'm referring to.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

---

I think you know that a lot of governance principles would apply even across borders. Burisma wasn't a tiny company - reportedly revenue was in the hundreds of millions - and they were dealing with a corruption scandal, so it's not insane for them to bring on an American with exceptional credentials (he went to Yale law school, no slouch), worked at a prominent law firm, had investment experience, and had a nice last name. I've seen board members at smaller US companies make more money. I think you have as well.

He wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been introduced by his prominent friend Devon Archer, so there are a lot of reasons I wasn't asked to serve on Burisma's board. Back then people didn't know he was a degenerate scumbag tax cheat either, so he probably had more of a halo effect than we imagine now.

I'm not saying that Burisma's appointment of Hunter was the product of a meritocracy. You know that I don't believe that there is enough meritocracy in this world and that we have both seen connected people reap the rewards. There is nothing new here and the only thing that makes Hunter unique is that he happens to be Joe Biden's scumbag kid and that he has made a number of obvious horrible mistakes which have come back to bite him.

---

I don't know what you mean. Most of the governance requirements for my public clients were based on Delaware corporation laws, Delaware case law, NYSE listing standards, and charter documents. We had local counsel manage the laws for our foreign subsidiaries because the requirements, from in person meetings, residency requirements, etc. were so different. I would never serve on a board of a foreign corporation based on my governance expertise. I cannot believe someone as experienced as you with so much public company experience just wrote that.

---

I don't know why you are choosing to take a limited the field of governance. Burisma was a private company so I have no idea why you are talking about listing standards. But more importantly, there are governance principles like accountability, transparency, risk management etc, that you implement through business processes. Surely you could bring your self-evident experience to bear with a foreign company (particularly one in a developing country like Ukraine) even if you don't know how many times you need to clap your hands to adjourn a board meeting or what the name of the form is to appoint directors.

Reports of Hunter's role on the board sound like pretty typical director duties that someone with his background (and impeccable academic credentials - YLS!).

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate here but your hyperbolic arguments don't really make a lot of sense. I think if you strip away all of the unproven allegations against him, this isn't outrageous. Any more so than Paul Ryan serving on the board of Fox and joining a PE firm based entirely on his Rolodex or Al Gore being on the board of Apple (he didn't actually invent the internet).

---

I'm sorry but maybe your experience and my experience are different. Who seeks transparency as a board skill? Accountability? I have attended many board meetings in private practice, led N&G Committee as executive champion as GC, and was on board of private company as an investor and currently serve on a public board, including as chair of the N&G committee. The corporate governance are not what you describe. There is risk management, which is a skillset not from governance lawyer but from CEO / CFO roles. No way we would ever consider a foreign attorney to serve on a board because of their governance practice. Your description is so removed from my actual experience. Did you see generally see appointment of foreign attorneys in you PE experience? Lawyers generally are not favored on private or public boards but definitely not foreign attorneys. They are generally CEO, CFO or marketing/CIO. The only reason I am on a board is because I represented them in practice and is close to the chairman. How many boards have you worked with? Maybe more limited since you were primarily in M&A?

---

The fact that you as an American lawyer in one of the strongest corporate governance regimes in the world wouldn't think of hiring a foreign lawyer to your board kind of proves the point doesn't it?

Doesn't sound like your experience (or mine) is relevant to a Ukrainian company who was under investigation before they hired Hunter (and hired him in part to help rehab their image). I'm assuming they didn't know he would take the money and spend it on hookers and meth and that their worst scandal would be appointing him to their board.

It seems like all of your responses today are based exclusively on your personal experience and that you and I have different ways of evaluating situations. I'm not claiming that Hunter was the best person in the world to clean up Burisma, but I do think it passes the sniff test.

You seem to be saying that since you would never do it for your American companies and that you think Hunter had zero capabilities (even with a degree from Yale law school and numerous other accomplishments). I'm just saying that Hunter's resume (with his last name) doesn't preclude Burisma from having appointed him to the board in good faith. I have no actual knowledge of Burisma or what Hunter actually did there or anything else.

If you told us that you were friends with the son of a prominent senator who went to law school with you, worked at your fancy law firm, worked at your fancy hedge fund, started his own VC fund and subsequently was appointed to a foreign corporation's board - I think we would all say "yup, that sounds like how the world currently works."

For what it's worth, there are a lot of people trying to change the way the world works to make it more fair or meritocratic. I would like my children to grow up in a more fair world, even if it means they won't get some of the benefits that Hunter had.

Honestly I don't know why you think it's that complicated.

---

Surprised more US lawyers are not being sought after by foreign corporations for their governance skills. My network is pretty broad and I know zero.

That is why it's strange. I was in the profession for decades and that is my experience. If it's relevant to your experience, do you not give weight to your experience?

Again - zero folks in my networks of Ivy League trained lawyers who were hired to serve as board members because of their US trained governance skill.

No way I would say - yup that's how it works.

Now if he was peddling influence because of his father's role as a VP and ability to use his connect to his father to benefit the foreign corporation, then that is peddling corruption.

---

We seem to be getting into counter-factual territory. Devon Archer pulled Hunter onto the Burisma board.

As for peddling influence, Archer testified that Hunter did trade on the "illusion" of access to his father, but that he actually had none.

Here's a WaPo opinion piece about this:

Quote:

---

Archer explained that his work for Burisma was centered on finding external financing for the then-young company to expand. Hunter Biden also helped set up connections in Washington, helping "set Burisma up with [legal firm] Boies Schiller, with Blue Star Group, with the DHS lobbyists, with a whole government affairs and lobbying team in D.C."


He said that Biden's last name helped and that Hunter Biden sought to give the impression he was leveraging Joe Biden in his role. But he also testified that Hunter Biden knew this was deceptive. Archer confirmed an email in which Hunter Biden discussed how to frame an announced trip by the then-vice president to Ukraine.

"The announcement of my guy's" his father's "upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking but what he will say and do is out of our hands," the email read. "In other words, it could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation."

This distills Archer's broader point: Hunter Biden wanted to give the impression he could bend Joe Biden's will but, in private conversation, he said he couldn't.

---

I read that and think - that's pretty typical and it happens all of the time with well-connected people.

There is nothing there that implicated Joe Biden whatsoever and that's about the closest the GOP has come to proving their case. In fact, they think Devon Archer has been their star witness lol.

Again, the fact that you don't have this personal experience doesn't mean that Joe Biden is corrupt.

Unless and until we see evidence of actual corruption, I'm far more concerned about the type of corruption that I saw every day when I was a practicing lawyer - which is the revolving door of people leaving federal agencies for prominent private sector jobs where they leverage their connections. I can come up with dozens of examples of people I've worked with or come into contact with who fit that profile. And absolutely no one is surprised when it happens. I'm not even referring to defense contractors. If you look at prominent fintech companies they are thick with these people. Facebook's first GC (nice guy, I'm not dogging him) was a white house lawyer for Dubya. There is basically a never ending list of these people and it goes well beyond the legal types I'm referring to.

---

You are trying so hard, probably going against every thing you know and have experienced to justify this.

Again, a US company doing this is immediate FCPA violation and would have all their profits from their country clawed back.

It's OK to admit that Hunter is corrupt and Joe enabled it. Don't sell your credibility on this dreadful family. You could argue it is still slightly better than the corruption from Trump.

But if you tell me that this is normal, I would argue that your practice, even in-house, never had you ever come close to overseeing compliance, including anti-corruption. It clearly never had you anywhere near the nominating committee for a board.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

---

I think you know that a lot of governance principles would apply even across borders. Burisma wasn't a tiny company - reportedly revenue was in the hundreds of millions - and they were dealing with a corruption scandal, so it's not insane for them to bring on an American with exceptional credentials (he went to Yale law school, no slouch), worked at a prominent law firm, had investment experience, and had a nice last name. I've seen board members at smaller US companies make more money. I think you have as well.

He wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been introduced by his prominent friend Devon Archer, so there are a lot of reasons I wasn't asked to serve on Burisma's board. Back then people didn't know he was a degenerate scumbag tax cheat either, so he probably had more of a halo effect than we imagine now.

I'm not saying that Burisma's appointment of Hunter was the product of a meritocracy. You know that I don't believe that there is enough meritocracy in this world and that we have both seen connected people reap the rewards. There is nothing new here and the only thing that makes Hunter unique is that he happens to be Joe Biden's scumbag kid and that he has made a number of obvious horrible mistakes which have come back to bite him.

---

I don't know what you mean. Most of the governance requirements for my public clients were based on Delaware corporation laws, Delaware case law, NYSE listing standards, and charter documents. We had local counsel manage the laws for our foreign subsidiaries because the requirements, from in person meetings, residency requirements, etc. were so different. I would never serve on a board of a foreign corporation based on my governance expertise. I cannot believe someone as experienced as you with so much public company experience just wrote that.

---

I don't know why you are choosing to take a limited the field of governance. Burisma was a private company so I have no idea why you are talking about listing standards. But more importantly, there are governance principles like accountability, transparency, risk management etc, that you implement through business processes. Surely you could bring your self-evident experience to bear with a foreign company (particularly one in a developing country like Ukraine) even if you don't know how many times you need to clap your hands to adjourn a board meeting or what the name of the form is to appoint directors.

Reports of Hunter's role on the board sound like pretty typical director duties that someone with his background (and impeccable academic credentials - YLS!).

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate here but your hyperbolic arguments don't really make a lot of sense. I think if you strip away all of the unproven allegations against him, this isn't outrageous. Any more so than Paul Ryan serving on the board of Fox and joining a PE firm based entirely on his Rolodex or Al Gore being on the board of Apple (he didn't actually invent the internet).

---

I'm sorry but maybe your experience and my experience are different. Who seeks transparency as a board skill? Accountability? I have attended many board meetings in private practice, led N&G Committee as executive champion as GC, and was on board of private company as an investor and currently serve on a public board, including as chair of the N&G committee. The corporate governance are not what you describe. There is risk management, which is a skillset not from governance lawyer but from CEO / CFO roles. No way we would ever consider a foreign attorney to serve on a board because of their governance practice. Your description is so removed from my actual experience. Did you see generally see appointment of foreign attorneys in you PE experience? Lawyers generally are not favored on private or public boards but definitely not foreign attorneys. They are generally CEO, CFO or marketing/CIO. The only reason I am on a board is because I represented them in practice and is close to the chairman. How many boards have you worked with? Maybe more limited since you were primarily in M&A?

---

The fact that you as an American lawyer in one of the strongest corporate governance regimes in the world wouldn't think of hiring a foreign lawyer to your board kind of proves the point doesn't it?

Doesn't sound like your experience (or mine) is relevant to a Ukrainian company who was under investigation before they hired Hunter (and hired him in part to help rehab their image). I'm assuming they didn't know he would take the money and spend it on hookers and meth and that their worst scandal would be appointing him to their board.

It seems like all of your responses today are based exclusively on your personal experience and that you and I have different ways of evaluating situations. I'm not claiming that Hunter was the best person in the world to clean up Burisma, but I do think it passes the sniff test.

You seem to be saying that since you would never do it for your American companies and that you think Hunter had zero capabilities (even with a degree from Yale law school and numerous other accomplishments). I'm just saying that Hunter's resume (with his last name) doesn't preclude Burisma from having appointed him to the board in good faith. I have no actual knowledge of Burisma or what Hunter actually did there or anything else.

If you told us that you were friends with the son of a prominent senator who went to law school with you, worked at your fancy law firm, worked at your fancy hedge fund, started his own VC fund and subsequently was appointed to a foreign corporation's board - I think we would all say "yup, that sounds like how the world currently works."

For what it's worth, there are a lot of people trying to change the way the world works to make it more fair or meritocratic. I would like my children to grow up in a more fair world, even if it means they won't get some of the benefits that Hunter had.

Honestly I don't know why you think it's that complicated.

---

Surprised more US lawyers are not being sought after by foreign corporations for their governance skills. My network is pretty broad and I know zero.

That is why it's strange. I was in the profession for decades and that is my experience. If it's relevant to your experience, do you not give weight to your experience?

Again - zero folks in my networks of Ivy League trained lawyers who were hired to serve as board members because of their US trained governance skill.

No way I would say - yup that's how it works.

Now if he was peddling influence because of his father's role as a VP and ability to use his connect to his father to benefit the foreign corporation, then that is peddling corruption.

---

We seem to be getting into counter-factual territory. Devon Archer pulled Hunter onto the Burisma board.

As for peddling influence, Archer testified that Hunter did trade on the "illusion" of access to his father, but that he actually had none.

Here's a WaPo opinion piece about this:

Quote:

---

Archer explained that his work for Burisma was centered on finding external financing for the then-young company to expand. Hunter Biden also helped set up connections in Washington, helping "set Burisma up with [legal firm] Boies Schiller, with Blue Star Group, with the DHS lobbyists, with a whole government affairs and lobbying team in D.C."


He said that Biden's last name helped and that Hunter Biden sought to give the impression he was leveraging Joe Biden in his role. But he also testified that Hunter Biden knew this was deceptive. Archer confirmed an email in which Hunter Biden discussed how to frame an announced trip by the then-vice president to Ukraine.

"The announcement of my guy's" his father's "upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking but what he will say and do is out of our hands," the email read. "In other words, it could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation."

This distills Archer's broader point: Hunter Biden wanted to give the impression he could bend Joe Biden's will but, in private conversation, he said he couldn't.

---

I read that and think - that's pretty typical and it happens all of the time with well-connected people.

There is nothing there that implicated Joe Biden whatsoever and that's about the closest the GOP has come to proving their case. In fact, they think Devon Archer has been their star witness lol.

Again, the fact that you don't have this personal experience doesn't mean that Joe Biden is corrupt.

Unless and until we see evidence of actual corruption, I'm far more concerned about the type of corruption that I saw every day when I was a practicing lawyer - which is the revolving door of people leaving federal agencies for prominent private sector jobs where they leverage their connections. I can come up with dozens of examples of people I've worked with or come into contact with who fit that profile. And absolutely no one is surprised when it happens. I'm not even referring to defense contractors. If you look at prominent fintech companies they are thick with these people. Facebook's first GC (nice guy, I'm not dogging him) was a white house lawyer for Dubya. There is basically a never ending list of these people and it goes well beyond the legal types I'm referring to.

---

You are trying so hard, probably going against every thing you know and have experienced to justify this.

Again, a US company doing this is immediate FCPA violation and would have all their profits from their country clawed back.

It's OK to admit that Hunter is corrupt and Joe enabled it. Don't sell your credibility on this dreadful family. You could argue it is still slightly better than the corruption from Trump.

But if you tell me that this is normal, I would argue that your practice, even in-house, never had you ever come close to overseeing compliance, including anti-corruption. It clearly never had you anywhere near the nominating committee for a board.

---

It appears you simply aren't reading what I've written.

First - Burisma isn't a public company and isn't a US company. They have never had any operations in the US. I don't know whether Ukraine has an equivalent statutory regime to FCPA, but even if they did and it applied to Burisma, hiring Hunter Biden may not have been a violation of it because Burisma had no relationship with the US.

Second - you are using circular reasoning by saying that it's "OK to admit that Hunter is corrupt and Joe enabled it." I agree it would be okay to do so if it's been established.

To date, it has not been established and nothing you have said has changed that. I believe your sole assumption that Hunter's engagement with Burisma was corrupt is based on the fact that you don't think his resume qualifies him. Without being inflammatory, Hunter's credentials read a lot like yours (Ivy league law school, big name firm, hedge fund, etc.). You may be properly assuming all of that was based on his last name and not his efforts, but that doesn't mean that Burisma had to have had corrupt intentions in appointing him or that he must have been corrupt. I think Hunter is a dirtbag who traded on his name, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have any capabilities, as you have assumed. I doubt he won editor positions on Yale law journals because of his name.

Third - You seem to want to turn everything into a professional competition so I will concede that you have won whatever competition you think this is. Despite your superior experience, I don't think it stretches credulity to claim that Hunter Biden isn't the first person with a famous last name to be given an opportunity that some people think he didn't deserve. He's not the first ivy league law school grad to have done so. He's not the first ex-hedge funder to have done so. etc. You keep coming back to the fact that you wouldn't nominate him to the board of your public company as if that somehow ends the conversation. We already know that Burisma appointed Devon Archer to the board, and his top credential seems to be playing lacrosse at Yale.

As I've mentioned before, I've seen people appointed to boards for their rolodex with less domain experience than Hunter. I don't think Apple appointed Al Gore because of his supply chain expertise or design chops.

I've enjoyed this conversation and I look forward to seeing how the Hunter Biden investigation goes. Have a nice weekend.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

---

I think you know that a lot of governance principles would apply even across borders. Burisma wasn't a tiny company - reportedly revenue was in the hundreds of millions - and they were dealing with a corruption scandal, so it's not insane for them to bring on an American with exceptional credentials (he went to Yale law school, no slouch), worked at a prominent law firm, had investment experience, and had a nice last name. I've seen board members at smaller US companies make more money. I think you have as well.

He wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been introduced by his prominent friend Devon Archer, so there are a lot of reasons I wasn't asked to serve on Burisma's board. Back then people didn't know he was a degenerate scumbag tax cheat either, so he probably had more of a halo effect than we imagine now.

I'm not saying that Burisma's appointment of Hunter was the product of a meritocracy. You know that I don't believe that there is enough meritocracy in this world and that we have both seen connected people reap the rewards. There is nothing new here and the only thing that makes Hunter unique is that he happens to be Joe Biden's scumbag kid and that he has made a number of obvious horrible mistakes which have come back to bite him.

---

I don't know what you mean. Most of the governance requirements for my public clients were based on Delaware corporation laws, Delaware case law, NYSE listing standards, and charter documents. We had local counsel manage the laws for our foreign subsidiaries because the requirements, from in person meetings, residency requirements, etc. were so different. I would never serve on a board of a foreign corporation based on my governance expertise. I cannot believe someone as experienced as you with so much public company experience just wrote that.

---

I don't know why you are choosing to take a limited the field of governance. Burisma was a private company so I have no idea why you are talking about listing standards. But more importantly, there are governance principles like accountability, transparency, risk management etc, that you implement through business processes. Surely you could bring your self-evident experience to bear with a foreign company (particularly one in a developing country like Ukraine) even if you don't know how many times you need to clap your hands to adjourn a board meeting or what the name of the form is to appoint directors.

Reports of Hunter's role on the board sound like pretty typical director duties that someone with his background (and impeccable academic credentials - YLS!).

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate here but your hyperbolic arguments don't really make a lot of sense. I think if you strip away all of the unproven allegations against him, this isn't outrageous. Any more so than Paul Ryan serving on the board of Fox and joining a PE firm based entirely on his Rolodex or Al Gore being on the board of Apple (he didn't actually invent the internet).

---

I'm sorry but maybe your experience and my experience are different. Who seeks transparency as a board skill? Accountability? I have attended many board meetings in private practice, led N&G Committee as executive champion as GC, and was on board of private company as an investor and currently serve on a public board, including as chair of the N&G committee. The corporate governance are not what you describe. There is risk management, which is a skillset not from governance lawyer but from CEO / CFO roles. No way we would ever consider a foreign attorney to serve on a board because of their governance practice. Your description is so removed from my actual experience. Did you see generally see appointment of foreign attorneys in you PE experience? Lawyers generally are not favored on private or public boards but definitely not foreign attorneys. They are generally CEO, CFO or marketing/CIO. The only reason I am on a board is because I represented them in practice and is close to the chairman. How many boards have you worked with? Maybe more limited since you were primarily in M&A?

---

The fact that you as an American lawyer in one of the strongest corporate governance regimes in the world wouldn't think of hiring a foreign lawyer to your board kind of proves the point doesn't it?

Doesn't sound like your experience (or mine) is relevant to a Ukrainian company who was under investigation before they hired Hunter (and hired him in part to help rehab their image). I'm assuming they didn't know he would take the money and spend it on hookers and meth and that their worst scandal would be appointing him to their board.

It seems like all of your responses today are based exclusively on your personal experience and that you and I have different ways of evaluating situations. I'm not claiming that Hunter was the best person in the world to clean up Burisma, but I do think it passes the sniff test.

You seem to be saying that since you would never do it for your American companies and that you think Hunter had zero capabilities (even with a degree from Yale law school and numerous other accomplishments). I'm just saying that Hunter's resume (with his last name) doesn't preclude Burisma from having appointed him to the board in good faith. I have no actual knowledge of Burisma or what Hunter actually did there or anything else.

If you told us that you were friends with the son of a prominent senator who went to law school with you, worked at your fancy law firm, worked at your fancy hedge fund, started his own VC fund and subsequently was appointed to a foreign corporation's board - I think we would all say "yup, that sounds like how the world currently works."

For what it's worth, there are a lot of people trying to change the way the world works to make it more fair or meritocratic. I would like my children to grow up in a more fair world, even if it means they won't get some of the benefits that Hunter had.

Honestly I don't know why you think it's that complicated.

---

Surprised more US lawyers are not being sought after by foreign corporations for their governance skills. My network is pretty broad and I know zero.

That is why it's strange. I was in the profession for decades and that is my experience. If it's relevant to your experience, do you not give weight to your experience?

Again - zero folks in my networks of Ivy League trained lawyers who were hired to serve as board members because of their US trained governance skill.

No way I would say - yup that's how it works.

Now if he was peddling influence because of his father's role as a VP and ability to use his connect to his father to benefit the foreign corporation, then that is peddling corruption.

---

We seem to be getting into counter-factual territory. Devon Archer pulled Hunter onto the Burisma board.

As for peddling influence, Archer testified that Hunter did trade on the "illusion" of access to his father, but that he actually had none.

Here's a WaPo opinion piece about this:

Quote:

---

Archer explained that his work for Burisma was centered on finding external financing for the then-young company to expand. Hunter Biden also helped set up connections in Washington, helping "set Burisma up with [legal firm] Boies Schiller, with Blue Star Group, with the DHS lobbyists, with a whole government affairs and lobbying team in D.C."


He said that Biden's last name helped and that Hunter Biden sought to give the impression he was leveraging Joe Biden in his role. But he also testified that Hunter Biden knew this was deceptive. Archer confirmed an email in which Hunter Biden discussed how to frame an announced trip by the then-vice president to Ukraine.

"The announcement of my guy's" his father's "upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking but what he will say and do is out of our hands," the email read. "In other words, it could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation."

This distills Archer's broader point: Hunter Biden wanted to give the impression he could bend Joe Biden's will but, in private conversation, he said he couldn't.

---

I read that and think - that's pretty typical and it happens all of the time with well-connected people.

There is nothing there that implicated Joe Biden whatsoever and that's about the closest the GOP has come to proving their case. In fact, they think Devon Archer has been their star witness lol.

Again, the fact that you don't have this personal experience doesn't mean that Joe Biden is corrupt.

Unless and until we see evidence of actual corruption, I'm far more concerned about the type of corruption that I saw every day when I was a practicing lawyer - which is the revolving door of people leaving federal agencies for prominent private sector jobs where they leverage their connections. I can come up with dozens of examples of people I've worked with or come into contact with who fit that profile. And absolutely no one is surprised when it happens. I'm not even referring to defense contractors. If you look at prominent fintech companies they are thick with these people. Facebook's first GC (nice guy, I'm not dogging him) was a white house lawyer for Dubya. There is basically a never ending list of these people and it goes well beyond the legal types I'm referring to.

---

You are trying so hard, probably going against every thing you know and have experienced to justify this.

Again, a US company doing this is immediate FCPA violation and would have all their profits from their country clawed back.

It's OK to admit that Hunter is corrupt and Joe enabled it. Don't sell your credibility on this dreadful family. You could argue it is still slightly better than the corruption from Trump.

But if you tell me that this is normal, I would argue that your practice, even in-house, never had you ever come close to overseeing compliance, including anti-corruption. It clearly never had you anywhere near the nominating committee for a board.

---

It appears you simply aren't reading what I've written.

First - Burisma isn't a public company and isn't a US company. They have never had any operations in the US. I don't know whether Ukraine has an equivalent statutory regime to FCPA, but even if they did and it applied to Burisma, hiring Hunter Biden may not have been a violation of it because Burisma had no relationship with the US.

Second - you are using circular reasoning by saying that it's "OK to admit that Hunter is corrupt and Joe enabled it." I agree it would be okay to do so if it's been established.

To date, it has not been established and nothing you have said has changed that. I believe your sole assumption that Hunter's engagement with Burisma was corrupt is based on the fact that you don't think his resume qualifies him. Without being inflammatory, Hunter's credentials read a lot like yours (Ivy league law school, big name firm, hedge fund, etc.). You may be properly assuming all of that was based on his last name and not his efforts, but that doesn't mean that Burisma had to have had corrupt intentions in appointing him or that he must have been corrupt. I think Hunter is a dirtbag who traded on his name, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have any capabilities, as you have assumed. I doubt he won editor positions on Yale law journals because of his name.

Third - You seem to want to turn everything into a professional competition so I will concede that you have won whatever competition you think this is. Despite your superior experience, I don't think it stretches credulity to claim that Hunter Biden isn't the first person with a famous last name to be given an opportunity that some people think he didn't deserve. He's not the first ivy league law school grad to have done so. He's not the first ex-hedge funder to have done so. etc. You keep coming back to the fact that you wouldn't nominate him to the board of your public company as if that somehow ends the conversation. We already know that Burisma appointed Devon Archer to the board, and his top credential seems to be playing lacrosse at Yale.

As I've mentioned before, I've seen people appointed to boards for their rolodex with less domain experience than Hunter. I don't think Apple appointed Al Gore because of his supply chain expertise or design chops.

I've enjoyed this conversation and I look forward to seeing how the Hunter Biden investigation goes. Have a nice weekend.

---

I'm sorry you are missing the point and will never choose to
See the point.

Since you are familiar with FCPA, you know that (as I wrote number of time that you ignore) IF THIIS HAD BEEN A US COMPANY, the US government would have charged the company with corruption and forced the company to pay all their revenues or profits from the country where the corruption occurred. Why do we do that? Because paying a government official directly and indirectly (including through payment to a family member) to try to influence a government official to take action is corrupt and evil and destructive to normal people's livelihood. So, now that it is with a poor developing country's government, you don't think it's corrupt because they didn't have the corruption laws that most developed countries have? In your mind, something that would be criminal in the US because corruption is destructive and evil is OK because a foreign entity in a developing nation did it with a US government official? For a US company, they are not even allowed to buy lunch for a foreign government official or their family members. You don't even have to show that you did so to influence.

And you think it's normal. I hope you never say that to your boss, especially if you are any way close to compliance.

Famous people may sometimes get a small role (never a board seat unless they also make an investment - see Ryan Reynolds's) publicity. Ex-government official may get roles due to their knowledge of government regulation and potential contact and knowing who to call. My prior law firm hired ex-leaders from the SEC as I'm sure yours did. I can guarantee you that no US company would ever hire a son of a government official to influence action of a US government. That is classic go to prison bribery. You want to excuse Hunter and Joe because it was in a country without developed laws. Why? No one then will take you seriously when you complain about corruption by J. Thomas or Trump and will instead argue technicalities. Defending Biden is not worth your integrity. He is not a savior.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

---

I think you know that a lot of governance principles would apply even across borders. Burisma wasn't a tiny company - reportedly revenue was in the hundreds of millions - and they were dealing with a corruption scandal, so it's not insane for them to bring on an American with exceptional credentials (he went to Yale law school, no slouch), worked at a prominent law firm, had investment experience, and had a nice last name. I've seen board members at smaller US companies make more money. I think you have as well.

He wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been introduced by his prominent friend Devon Archer, so there are a lot of reasons I wasn't asked to serve on Burisma's board. Back then people didn't know he was a degenerate scumbag tax cheat either, so he probably had more of a halo effect than we imagine now.

I'm not saying that Burisma's appointment of Hunter was the product of a meritocracy. You know that I don't believe that there is enough meritocracy in this world and that we have both seen connected people reap the rewards. There is nothing new here and the only thing that makes Hunter unique is that he happens to be Joe Biden's scumbag kid and that he has made a number of obvious horrible mistakes which have come back to bite him.

---

I don't know what you mean. Most of the governance requirements for my public clients were based on Delaware corporation laws, Delaware case law, NYSE listing standards, and charter documents. We had local counsel manage the laws for our foreign subsidiaries because the requirements, from in person meetings, residency requirements, etc. were so different. I would never serve on a board of a foreign corporation based on my governance expertise. I cannot believe someone as experienced as you with so much public company experience just wrote that.

---

I don't know why you are choosing to take a limited the field of governance. Burisma was a private company so I have no idea why you are talking about listing standards. But more importantly, there are governance principles like accountability, transparency, risk management etc, that you implement through business processes. Surely you could bring your self-evident experience to bear with a foreign company (particularly one in a developing country like Ukraine) even if you don't know how many times you need to clap your hands to adjourn a board meeting or what the name of the form is to appoint directors.

Reports of Hunter's role on the board sound like pretty typical director duties that someone with his background (and impeccable academic credentials - YLS!).

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate here but your hyperbolic arguments don't really make a lot of sense. I think if you strip away all of the unproven allegations against him, this isn't outrageous. Any more so than Paul Ryan serving on the board of Fox and joining a PE firm based entirely on his Rolodex or Al Gore being on the board of Apple (he didn't actually invent the internet).

---

I'm sorry but maybe your experience and my experience are different. Who seeks transparency as a board skill? Accountability? I have attended many board meetings in private practice, led N&G Committee as executive champion as GC, and was on board of private company as an investor and currently serve on a public board, including as chair of the N&G committee. The corporate governance are not what you describe. There is risk management, which is a skillset not from governance lawyer but from CEO / CFO roles. No way we would ever consider a foreign attorney to serve on a board because of their governance practice. Your description is so removed from my actual experience. Did you see generally see appointment of foreign attorneys in you PE experience? Lawyers generally are not favored on private or public boards but definitely not foreign attorneys. They are generally CEO, CFO or marketing/CIO. The only reason I am on a board is because I represented them in practice and is close to the chairman. How many boards have you worked with? Maybe more limited since you were primarily in M&A?

---

The fact that you as an American lawyer in one of the strongest corporate governance regimes in the world wouldn't think of hiring a foreign lawyer to your board kind of proves the point doesn't it?

Doesn't sound like your experience (or mine) is relevant to a Ukrainian company who was under investigation before they hired Hunter (and hired him in part to help rehab their image). I'm assuming they didn't know he would take the money and spend it on hookers and meth and that their worst scandal would be appointing him to their board.

It seems like all of your responses today are based exclusively on your personal experience and that you and I have different ways of evaluating situations. I'm not claiming that Hunter was the best person in the world to clean up Burisma, but I do think it passes the sniff test.

You seem to be saying that since you would never do it for your American companies and that you think Hunter had zero capabilities (even with a degree from Yale law school and numerous other accomplishments). I'm just saying that Hunter's resume (with his last name) doesn't preclude Burisma from having appointed him to the board in good faith. I have no actual knowledge of Burisma or what Hunter actually did there or anything else.

If you told us that you were friends with the son of a prominent senator who went to law school with you, worked at your fancy law firm, worked at your fancy hedge fund, started his own VC fund and subsequently was appointed to a foreign corporation's board - I think we would all say "yup, that sounds like how the world currently works."

For what it's worth, there are a lot of people trying to change the way the world works to make it more fair or meritocratic. I would like my children to grow up in a more fair world, even if it means they won't get some of the benefits that Hunter had.

Honestly I don't know why you think it's that complicated.

---

Surprised more US lawyers are not being sought after by foreign corporations for their governance skills. My network is pretty broad and I know zero.

That is why it's strange. I was in the profession for decades and that is my experience. If it's relevant to your experience, do you not give weight to your experience?

Again - zero folks in my networks of Ivy League trained lawyers who were hired to serve as board members because of their US trained governance skill.

No way I would say - yup that's how it works.

Now if he was peddling influence because of his father's role as a VP and ability to use his connect to his father to benefit the foreign corporation, then that is peddling corruption.

---

We seem to be getting into counter-factual territory. Devon Archer pulled Hunter onto the Burisma board. He wasn't hired off the street because Burisma had a headhunter looking for a specific profile. Like many well-connected people, he got a sweet gig based on his unearned privilege.

As for peddling influence, Archer testified that Hunter did trade on the "illusion" of access to his father, but that he actually had none.

Here's a WaPo opinion piece about this:

Quote:

---

Archer explained that his work for Burisma was centered on finding external financing for the then-young company to expand. Hunter Biden also helped set up connections in Washington, helping "set Burisma up with [legal firm] Boies Schiller, with Blue Star Group, with the DHS lobbyists, with a whole government affairs and lobbying team in D.C."


He said that Biden's last name helped and that Hunter Biden sought to give the impression he was leveraging Joe Biden in his role. But he also testified that Hunter Biden knew this was deceptive. Archer confirmed an email in which Hunter Biden discussed how to frame an announced trip by the then-vice president to Ukraine.

"The announcement of my guy's" his father's "upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking but what he will say and do is out of our hands," the email read. "In other words, it could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation."

This distills Archer's broader point: Hunter Biden wanted to give the impression he could bend Joe Biden's will but, in private conversation, he said he couldn't.

---

I read that and think - that's pretty typical and it happens all of the time with well-connected people.

There is nothing there that implicated Joe Biden whatsoever and that's about the closest the GOP has come to proving their case. In fact, they think Devon Archer has been their star witness lol.

Again, the fact that you don't have this personal experience doesn't mean that Joe Biden is corrupt.

Unless and until we see evidence of actual corruption, I'm far more concerned about the type of corruption that I saw every day when I was a practicing lawyer - which is the revolving door of people leaving federal agencies for prominent private sector jobs where they leverage their connections. I can come up with dozens of examples of people I've worked with or come into contact with who fit that profile. And absolutely no one is surprised when it happens. I'm not even referring to defense contractors. If you look at prominent fintech companies they are thick with these people. Facebook's first GC (nice guy, I'm not dogging him) was a white house lawyer for Dubya. There is basically a never ending list of these people and it goes well beyond the legal types I'm referring to.

---

Not educated in the legal jargon being tossed here, but the big thing you avoid, and the thing so many are angry about in our society today is "If his name were Hunter Trump" what would you be saying Unit? The lack of an answer there is very telling. The lack of an answer there is why there is so much hatred in our society.

I love the idea of Manchin thinking Independent and maybe No Labels. Not because it hurts or helps one side or the other, but because it brings things back to the middle and "common sense"---a little bit left, a little right, but definitely not ultra conservative or liberal. If anything changes in our political landscape through all of this tension I hope it is a middle third party establishment, much to the chagrin of both Repubs and Dems. I am hated in my own party (RINO) because my conservatism extends to economic and monetary matters only.

I suspect you can admit to some measure of fairness Unit. Step up

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

---

I think you know that a lot of governance principles would apply even across borders. Burisma wasn't a tiny company - reportedly revenue was in the hundreds of millions - and they were dealing with a corruption scandal, so it's not insane for them to bring on an American with exceptional credentials (he went to Yale law school, no slouch), worked at a prominent law firm, had investment experience, and had a nice last name. I've seen board members at smaller US companies make more money. I think you have as well.

He wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been introduced by his prominent friend Devon Archer, so there are a lot of reasons I wasn't asked to serve on Burisma's board. Back then people didn't know he was a degenerate scumbag tax cheat either, so he probably had more of a halo effect than we imagine now.

I'm not saying that Burisma's appointment of Hunter was the product of a meritocracy. You know that I don't believe that there is enough meritocracy in this world and that we have both seen connected people reap the rewards. There is nothing new here and the only thing that makes Hunter unique is that he happens to be Joe Biden's scumbag kid and that he has made a number of obvious horrible mistakes which have come back to bite him.

---

I don't know what you mean. Most of the governance requirements for my public clients were based on Delaware corporation laws, Delaware case law, NYSE listing standards, and charter documents. We had local counsel manage the laws for our foreign subsidiaries because the requirements, from in person meetings, residency requirements, etc. were so different. I would never serve on a board of a foreign corporation based on my governance expertise. I cannot believe someone as experienced as you with so much public company experience just wrote that.

---

I don't know why you are choosing to take a limited the field of governance. Burisma was a private company so I have no idea why you are talking about listing standards. But more importantly, there are governance principles like accountability, transparency, risk management etc, that you implement through business processes. Surely you could bring your self-evident experience to bear with a foreign company (particularly one in a developing country like Ukraine) even if you don't know how many times you need to clap your hands to adjourn a board meeting or what the name of the form is to appoint directors.

Reports of Hunter's role on the board sound like pretty typical director duties that someone with his background (and impeccable academic credentials - YLS!).

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate here but your hyperbolic arguments don't really make a lot of sense. I think if you strip away all of the unproven allegations against him, this isn't outrageous. Any more so than Paul Ryan serving on the board of Fox and joining a PE firm based entirely on his Rolodex or Al Gore being on the board of Apple (he didn't actually invent the internet).

---

I'm sorry but maybe your experience and my experience are different. Who seeks transparency as a board skill? Accountability? I have attended many board meetings in private practice, led N&G Committee as executive champion as GC, and was on board of private company as an investor and currently serve on a public board, including as chair of the N&G committee. The corporate governance are not what you describe. There is risk management, which is a skillset not from governance lawyer but from CEO / CFO roles. No way we would ever consider a foreign attorney to serve on a board because of their governance practice. Your description is so removed from my actual experience. Did you see generally see appointment of foreign attorneys in you PE experience? Lawyers generally are not favored on private or public boards but definitely not foreign attorneys. They are generally CEO, CFO or marketing/CIO. The only reason I am on a board is because I represented them in practice and is close to the chairman. How many boards have you worked with? Maybe more limited since you were primarily in M&A?

---

The fact that you as an American lawyer in one of the strongest corporate governance regimes in the world wouldn't think of hiring a foreign lawyer to your board kind of proves the point doesn't it?

Doesn't sound like your experience (or mine) is relevant to a Ukrainian company who was under investigation before they hired Hunter (and hired him in part to help rehab their image). I'm assuming they didn't know he would take the money and spend it on hookers and meth and that their worst scandal would be appointing him to their board.

It seems like all of your responses today are based exclusively on your personal experience and that you and I have different ways of evaluating situations. I'm not claiming that Hunter was the best person in the world to clean up Burisma, but I do think it passes the sniff test.

You seem to be saying that since you would never do it for your American companies and that you think Hunter had zero capabilities (even with a degree from Yale law school and numerous other accomplishments). I'm just saying that Hunter's resume (with his last name) doesn't preclude Burisma from having appointed him to the board in good faith. I have no actual knowledge of Burisma or what Hunter actually did there or anything else.

If you told us that you were friends with the son of a prominent senator who went to law school with you, worked at your fancy law firm, worked at your fancy hedge fund, started his own VC fund and subsequently was appointed to a foreign corporation's board - I think we would all say "yup, that sounds like how the world currently works."

For what it's worth, there are a lot of people trying to change the way the world works to make it more fair or meritocratic. I would like my children to grow up in a more fair world, even if it means they won't get some of the benefits that Hunter had.

Honestly I don't know why you think it's that complicated.

---

Surprised more US lawyers are not being sought after by foreign corporations for their governance skills. My network is pretty broad and I know zero.

That is why it's strange. I was in the profession for decades and that is my experience. If it's relevant to your experience, do you not give weight to your experience?

Again - zero folks in my networks of Ivy League trained lawyers who were hired to serve as board members because of their US trained governance skill.

No way I would say - yup that's how it works.

Now if he was peddling influence because of his father's role as a VP and ability to use his connect to his father to benefit the foreign corporation, then that is peddling corruption.

---

We seem to be getting into counter-factual territory. Devon Archer pulled Hunter onto the Burisma board. He wasn't hired off the street because Burisma had a headhunter looking for a specific profile. Like many well-connected people, he got a sweet gig based on his unearned privilege.

As for peddling influence, Archer testified that Hunter did trade on the "illusion" of access to his father, but that he actually had none.

Here's a WaPo opinion piece about this:

Quote:

---

Archer explained that his work for Burisma was centered on finding external financing for the then-young company to expand. Hunter Biden also helped set up connections in Washington, helping "set Burisma up with [legal firm] Boies Schiller, with Blue Star Group, with the DHS lobbyists, with a whole government affairs and lobbying team in D.C."


He said that Biden's last name helped and that Hunter Biden sought to give the impression he was leveraging Joe Biden in his role. But he also testified that Hunter Biden knew this was deceptive. Archer confirmed an email in which Hunter Biden discussed how to frame an announced trip by the then-vice president to Ukraine.

"The announcement of my guy's" his father's "upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking but what he will say and do is out of our hands," the email read. "In other words, it could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation."

This distills Archer's broader point: Hunter Biden wanted to give the impression he could bend Joe Biden's will but, in private conversation, he said he couldn't.

---

I read that and think - that's pretty typical and it happens all of the time with well-connected people.

There is nothing there that implicated Joe Biden whatsoever and that's about the closest the GOP has come to proving their case. In fact, they think Devon Archer has been their star witness lol.

Again, the fact that you don't have this personal experience doesn't mean that Joe Biden is corrupt.

Unless and until we see evidence of actual corruption, I'm far more concerned about the type of corruption that I saw every day when I was a practicing lawyer - which is the revolving door of people leaving federal agencies for prominent private sector jobs where they leverage their connections. I can come up with dozens of examples of people I've worked with or come into contact with who fit that profile. And absolutely no one is surprised when it happens. I'm not even referring to defense contractors. If you look at prominent fintech companies they are thick with these people. Facebook's first GC (nice guy, I'm not dogging him) was a white house lawyer for Dubya. There is basically a never ending list of these people and it goes well beyond the legal types I'm referring to.

---

Not educated in the legal jargon being tossed here, but the big thing you avoid, and the thing so many are angry about in our society today is "If his name were Hunter Trump" what would you be saying Unit? The lack of an answer there is very telling. The lack of an answer there is why there is so much hatred in our society.

I love the idea of Manchin thinking Independent and maybe No Labels. Not because it hurts or helps one side or the other, but because it brings things back to the middle and "common sense"---a little bit left, a little right, but definitely not ultra conservative or liberal. If anything changes in our political landscape through all of this tension I hope it is a middle third party establishment, much to the chagrin of both Repubs and Dems. I am hated in my own party (RINO) because my conservatism extends to economic and monetary matters only.

I suspect you can admit to some measure of fairness Unit. Step up

---

Jared Kushner (aka Trump) has done very similar things with larger dollar amounts and is not under investigation. Not a single GOPer (even including moderates like you) have called for any investigations into the Trump children.

So we know the answer - if his name was Hunter Trump he would still be raking in the big bucks and no one would be doing anything about it.

If Kushner were under investigation for a crime, Trump would have pardoned him and claimed the whole thing were a witch hunt. No one in the GOP would criticize him (not even moderates like you).

Hunter has been prosecuted for crimes (mis-statement on a gun license, not paying taxes) that typically aren't criminally prosecuted and rarely result in any jail time at all. If he were a Trump, we know how this would play out.

It's not just Jared - look at how Ivanka went with her daddy on AF1 to China to meet with Chinese politicians and then magically numerous trademark applications were approved. Look at how Trump's hotel in DC was filled with foreign diplomats - everyone knew if you were visiting the white house you had to stay at Trump's hotel.

There was plenty of corruption to chase under Trump, and the GOP couldn't care less (including moderates like you).

I'm not really defending Hunter - I am just saying that I don't buy a lot of the conclusions about him and Burisma (and some of the other claims). He's obviously a dirtbag and a drug addict with a lot of problems, but that doesn't mean that the GOP is justified in inventing claims with no basis. They've been chasing after him for like 4+ years and have yet to land on a single obvious thing he did wrong regarding corruption. Sure he didn't pay his taxes (Trump's business has been criminally convicted with tax fraud and not a single GOPer batted an eyelash (not even a moderate like you) so forgive me for not pretending like his failure to pay taxes is unique.

I could care less if Hunter loses his trial(s) and goes to jail but unless and until there is actual evidence of corruption, this whole thing looks like a wild goose chase. So that's what I am saying.

PS: Odonto it appears you have an interest in eliminating government corruption. Will you join me in calling for a bipartisan investigation into potentially corrupt acts by Trump's adult children? If not, why not? Do you think the Trumps should be shielded from investigation that they would suffer from if their last name was Biden?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

If he was not enriching himself from the money his son received from peddling influence, then Joe at least was engaged in willful blindness. He knows his son and his lack of capabilities. Did he not wondering why powerful foreign companies were hiring his unqualified son? Does that pass the sniff test any more than J. Thomas was just hanging out with his friends.

---

Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown undergrad and Yale law school. As I recall you have immense respect for these sorts of institutions and the accomplished people who graduate from them. He earned editorships at multiple journals while at Yale.

From there, he went on to hedge fund work and investment and advisory work. He also co-founded a VC firm and was counsel at Boies Schiller.

You like to talk a lot about credentials and accomplishments - it sure seems like Hunter had them.

Biden was purportedly hired by Burisma due to his corporate governance skills, not for his energy knowledge. That's what he was doing in his work with Boies Schiller. Do you know for a fact that he had no such skills or are you just accepting the narrative?

I know it's de riguer for the deplorables to pile on by saying that Hunter had no skills and was unaccomplished, but his resume says otherwise. How are you able to conclude that Hunter lacked capabilities and was unqualified for his positions? How would you expect his father (who was quite busy with his own career) to have made those determinations?

Don't get me wrong - I believe that a lot of these scions of senators and other politicians are out there trading on their names more than anything else, but at a certain point they do benefit from their experiences. At what point did Dubya stop being a f()ckup cokehead and become a serious person worthy of your vote (presumably you voted for him in 2000 and 2004)? How about John McCain?

I have known more than a few people with substance abuse problems (and other issues) who were quite accomplished and successful in their careers. I know the narrative is that Hunter had zero marketable skills apart from his name, but has anyone ever actually pressure tested that narrative?

---

Governance skill at a foreign corporation? You as a long practicing legal professional - would you feel qualified to serve as a governance expert in a foreign energy company? You of all people should know how different laws are in local jurisdictions. I hired local counsel even when I was in private practice. What would happen if you applied to serve as a board member in a foreign corporation? You would never get an invite. You are probably more of a governance expert.

You know he had no skills whatsoever to serve in that capacity and be paid that much money. No more than somehow he became an artist worthy of $500k per painting. If he went to work for a hedge fund or law firm, great.

But you know better. Just stand back, assume his name was Hunter Trump and judge fairly.

---

I think you know that a lot of governance principles would apply even across borders. Burisma wasn't a tiny company - reportedly revenue was in the hundreds of millions - and they were dealing with a corruption scandal, so it's not insane for them to bring on an American with exceptional credentials (he went to Yale law school, no slouch), worked at a prominent law firm, had investment experience, and had a nice last name. I've seen board members at smaller US companies make more money. I think you have as well.

He wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been introduced by his prominent friend Devon Archer, so there are a lot of reasons I wasn't asked to serve on Burisma's board. Back then people didn't know he was a degenerate scumbag tax cheat either, so he probably had more of a halo effect than we imagine now.

I'm not saying that Burisma's appointment of Hunter was the product of a meritocracy. You know that I don't believe that there is enough meritocracy in this world and that we have both seen connected people reap the rewards. There is nothing new here and the only thing that makes Hunter unique is that he happens to be Joe Biden's scumbag kid and that he has made a number of obvious horrible mistakes which have come back to bite him.

---

I don't know what you mean. Most of the governance requirements for my public clients were based on Delaware corporation laws, Delaware case law, NYSE listing standards, and charter documents. We had local counsel manage the laws for our foreign subsidiaries because the requirements, from in person meetings, residency requirements, etc. were so different. I would never serve on a board of a foreign corporation based on my governance expertise. I cannot believe someone as experienced as you with so much public company experience just wrote that.

---

I don't know why you are choosing to take a limited the field of governance. Burisma was a private company so I have no idea why you are talking about listing standards. But more importantly, there are governance principles like accountability, transparency, risk management etc, that you implement through business processes. Surely you could bring your self-evident experience to bear with a foreign company (particularly one in a developing country like Ukraine) even if you don't know how many times you need to clap your hands to adjourn a board meeting or what the name of the form is to appoint directors.

Reports of Hunter's role on the board sound like pretty typical director duties that someone with his background (and impeccable academic credentials - YLS!).

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm obviously playing a bit of devil's advocate here but your hyperbolic arguments don't really make a lot of sense. I think if you strip away all of the unproven allegations against him, this isn't outrageous. Any more so than Paul Ryan serving on the board of Fox and joining a PE firm based entirely on his Rolodex or Al Gore being on the board of Apple (he didn't actually invent the internet).

---

I'm sorry but maybe your experience and my experience are different. Who seeks transparency as a board skill? Accountability? I have attended many board meetings in private practice, led N&G Committee as executive champion as GC, and was on board of private company as an investor and currently serve on a public board, including as chair of the N&G committee. The corporate governance are not what you describe. There is risk management, which is a skillset not from governance lawyer but from CEO / CFO roles. No way we would ever consider a foreign attorney to serve on a board because of their governance practice. Your description is so removed from my actual experience. Did you see generally see appointment of foreign attorneys in you PE experience? Lawyers generally are not favored on private or public boards but definitely not foreign attorneys. They are generally CEO, CFO or marketing/CIO. The only reason I am on a board is because I represented them in practice and is close to the chairman. How many boards have you worked with? Maybe more limited since you were primarily in M&A?

---

The fact that you as an American lawyer in one of the strongest corporate governance regimes in the world wouldn't think of hiring a foreign lawyer to your board kind of proves the point doesn't it?

Doesn't sound like your experience (or mine) is relevant to a Ukrainian company who was under investigation before they hired Hunter (and hired him in part to help rehab their image). I'm assuming they didn't know he would take the money and spend it on hookers and meth and that their worst scandal would be appointing him to their board.

It seems like all of your responses today are based exclusively on your personal experience and that you and I have different ways of evaluating situations. I'm not claiming that Hunter was the best person in the world to clean up Burisma, but I do think it passes the sniff test.

You seem to be saying that since you would never do it for your American companies and that you think Hunter had zero capabilities (even with a degree from Yale law school and numerous other accomplishments). I'm just saying that Hunter's resume (with his last name) doesn't preclude Burisma from having appointed him to the board in good faith. I have no actual knowledge of Burisma or what Hunter actually did there or anything else.

If you told us that you were friends with the son of a prominent senator who went to law school with you, worked at your fancy law firm, worked at your fancy hedge fund, started his own VC fund and subsequently was appointed to a foreign corporation's board - I think we would all say "yup, that sounds like how the world currently works."

For what it's worth, there are a lot of people trying to change the way the world works to make it more fair or meritocratic. I would like my children to grow up in a more fair world, even if it means they won't get some of the benefits that Hunter had.

Honestly I don't know why you think it's that complicated.

---

Surprised more US lawyers are not being sought after by foreign corporations for their governance skills. My network is pretty broad and I know zero.

That is why it's strange. I was in the profession for decades and that is my experience. If it's relevant to your experience, do you not give weight to your experience?

Again - zero folks in my networks of Ivy League trained lawyers who were hired to serve as board members because of their US trained governance skill.

No way I would say - yup that's how it works.

Now if he was peddling influence because of his father's role as a VP and ability to use his connect to his father to benefit the foreign corporation, then that is peddling corruption.

---

We seem to be getting into counter-factual territory. Devon Archer pulled Hunter onto the Burisma board.

As for peddling influence, Archer testified that Hunter did trade on the "illusion" of access to his father, but that he actually had none.

Here's a WaPo opinion piece about this:

Quote:

---

Archer explained that his work for Burisma was centered on finding external financing for the then-young company to expand. Hunter Biden also helped set up connections in Washington, helping "set Burisma up with [legal firm] Boies Schiller, with Blue Star Group, with the DHS lobbyists, with a whole government affairs and lobbying team in D.C."


He said that Biden's last name helped and that Hunter Biden sought to give the impression he was leveraging Joe Biden in his role. But he also testified that Hunter Biden knew this was deceptive. Archer confirmed an email in which Hunter Biden discussed how to frame an announced trip by the then-vice president to Ukraine.

"The announcement of my guy's" his father's "upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking but what he will say and do is out of our hands," the email read. "In other words, it could be a really good thing or it could end up creating too great an expectation."

This distills Archer's broader point: Hunter Biden wanted to give the impression he could bend Joe Biden's will but, in private conversation, he said he couldn't.

---

I read that and think - that's pretty typical and it happens all of the time with well-connected people.

There is nothing there that implicated Joe Biden whatsoever and that's about the closest the GOP has come to proving their case. In fact, they think Devon Archer has been their star witness lol.

Again, the fact that you don't have this personal experience doesn't mean that Joe Biden is corrupt.

Unless and until we see evidence of actual corruption, I'm far more concerned about the type of corruption that I saw every day when I was a practicing lawyer - which is the revolving door of people leaving federal agencies for prominent private sector jobs where they leverage their connections. I can come up with dozens of examples of people I've worked with or come into contact with who fit that profile. And absolutely no one is surprised when it happens. I'm not even referring to defense contractors. If you look at prominent fintech companies they are thick with these people. Facebook's first GC (nice guy, I'm not dogging him) was a white house lawyer for Dubya. There is basically a never ending list of these people and it goes well beyond the legal types I'm referring to.

---

You are trying so hard, probably going against every thing you know and have experienced to justify this.

Again, a US company doing this is immediate FCPA violation and would have all their profits from their country clawed back.

It's OK to admit that Hunter is corrupt and Joe enabled it. Don't sell your credibility on this dreadful family. You could argue it is still slightly better than the corruption from Trump.

But if you tell me that this is normal, I would argue that your practice, even in-house, never had you ever come close to overseeing compliance, including anti-corruption. It clearly never had you anywhere near the nominating committee for a board.

---

It appears you simply aren't reading what I've written.

First - Burisma isn't a public company and isn't a US company. They have never had any operations in the US. I don't know whether Ukraine has an equivalent statutory regime to FCPA, but even if they did and it applied to Burisma, hiring Hunter Biden may not have been a violation of it because Burisma had no relationship with the US.

Second - you are using circular reasoning by saying that it's "OK to admit that Hunter is corrupt and Joe enabled it." I agree it would be okay to do so if it's been established.

To date, it has not been established and nothing you have said has changed that. I believe your sole assumption that Hunter's engagement with Burisma was corrupt is based on the fact that you don't think his resume qualifies him. Without being inflammatory, Hunter's credentials read a lot like yours (Ivy league law school, big name firm, hedge fund, etc.). You may be properly assuming all of that was based on his last name and not his efforts, but that doesn't mean that Burisma had to have had corrupt intentions in appointing him or that he must have been corrupt. I think Hunter is a dirtbag who traded on his name, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have any capabilities, as you have assumed. I doubt he won editor positions on Yale law journals because of his name.

Third - You seem to want to turn everything into a professional competition so I will concede that you have won whatever competition you think this is. Despite your superior experience, I don't think it stretches credulity to claim that Hunter Biden isn't the first person with a famous last name to be given an opportunity that some people think he didn't deserve. He's not the first ivy league law school grad to have done so. He's not the first ex-hedge funder to have done so. etc. You keep coming back to the fact that you wouldn't nominate him to the board of your public company as if that somehow ends the conversation. We already know that Burisma appointed Devon Archer to the board, and his top credential seems to be playing lacrosse at Yale.

As I've mentioned before, I've seen people appointed to boards for their rolodex with less domain experience than Hunter. I don't think Apple appointed Al Gore because of his supply chain expertise or design chops.

I've enjoyed this conversation and I look forward to seeing how the Hunter Biden investigation goes. Have a nice weekend.

---

I'm sorry you are missing the point and will never choose to
See the point.

Since you are familiar with FCPA, you know that (as I wrote number of time that you ignore) IF THIIS HAD BEEN A US COMPANY, the US government would have charged the company with corruption and forced the company to pay all their revenues or profits from the country where the corruption occurred. Why do we do that? Because paying a government official directly and indirectly (including through payment to a family member) to try to influence a government official to take action is corrupt and evil and destructive to normal people's livelihood. So, now that it is with a poor developing country's government, you don't think it's corrupt because they didn't have the corruption laws that most developed countries have? In your mind, something that would be criminal in the US because corruption is destructive and evil is OK because a foreign entity in a developing nation did it with a US government official? For a US company, they are not even allowed to buy lunch for a foreign government official or their family members. You don't even have to show that you did so to influence.

And you think it's normal. I hope you never say that to your boss, especially if you are any way close to compliance.

Famous people may sometimes get a small role (never a board seat unless they also make an investment - see Ryan Reynolds's) publicity. Ex-government official may get roles due to their knowledge of government regulation and potential contact and knowing who to call. My prior law firm hired ex-leaders from the SEC as I'm sure yours did. I can guarantee you that no US company would ever hire a son of a government official to influence action of a US government. That is classic go to prison bribery. You want to excuse Hunter and Joe because it was in a country without developed laws. Why? No one then will take you seriously when you complain about corruption by J. Thomas or Trump and will instead argue technicalities. Defending Biden is not worth your integrity. He is not a savior.

---

Sigh, it's happened again. I'm sorry that this has become such a contentious conversation for you and I don't know why that is. The fact that you are attempting to make this personal to me and my experience is both disappointing and a bit hilarious.

As for your hypothetical, you've have to change quite a few facts in order to make your conclusion, so it's not necessarily apt. You talk about forfeiting revenues/profits in the country in question, but AS I'VE STATED Burisma never did any business in the country in which Joe Biden was VP. You are assuming both corrupt intent and other elements required for an FCPA violation and ignoring all affirmative defenses. Given that there is no obvious connection between Burisma's business and Joe Biden's government, I think Burisma may have some arguments that you are completely ignoring.

But sure, we can both agree that if this were a US company subject to FCPA and the required elements of an FCPA violation occurred, than they would have a serious problem. I'm not sure how that's relevant or why anyone would care given that we both agree that the FCPA is completely irrelevant.

You probably didn't see it but I made a post last week where I called out the FCPA and said that it was a great regime and should be expanded to pick up far more corruption. I think the FCPA works for that we need a lot more.

---

U2, why is it that you make it contentious and then accuse me of being contentious? That is a bad habit of yours. You may be even more contentious than me but you always accuse others of doing what you are doing. In what sense have you been been less contentious than I have? In what sense have you not made snide personal comments about me? Just debate the point and don't use weak methods like saying I am contentious.

And you are just choosing not to read my point I expressly wrote three times. Why do we have FCPA? Because bribing a government official, including their children, destroys standard of living for every day folks. It is based on principle. Even if the entity was not a US company, the concept that made FCPA necessary still applies in morality. Our morality is not derived from laws but our laws are derived from our morality. Isn't that your argument for why J. Thomas is corrupt? Did he break any laws? No, but the concept, principle and spirit of why other corruption laws exists still applies to Thomas such that even if the law does not apply to Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice, we can still personally assess him as corrupt. He may not be accountable in court but if he were ever up for election, I would not vote for him. And as such, I would never vote for Biden again because he and his family is corrupt even if we could never charge him for corruption under the applicable laws. I never wrote that I think Joe Biden should go to jail for his and his son's corrupt actions. I just won't vote for him. That was the original post I made as to why I will abstain from voting for Trump or Biden.

If you want to suspend all judgment and common sense and believe that Hunter was paid millions and that his emails and claims admitting him selling influence and name and threatening those same folks with retribution from his dad and think he was just paid for his governance expertise, you lose credibility on this topic. You assume the worst for Trump annd Thomas and suspend all reason and demand airtight proof for Biden. I don't suspend my judgment and common sense for either. I think they both are corrupt and would not vote for either. And neither is better than the other.

Got it??