Unit2Sucks said:

---

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?

---

I am not him but I would resist until I felt both instances of corruption were investigated. If, like here, you want to excuse Biden and use it as political persecution of Trump only, then no. If both will be investigated, I would be thrilled. Shine sunlight on both corrupt families. Take politics out of it. Just have not seen that anyone here will stand of principle and not tribalism. I for one would love it if both parties were subject to the same standards and we could apply the standards equally independent of our political leanings. But that has not been the case even in theory and debate here.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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??

---

I don't believe I made it contentious. You tried in vain to attack me professionally. Had I done the same to you would have resulted in you losing your mind as we've seen time and time again. I shrugged it off.

I agree with everything you've said about FCPA in this post, but you seem to continually gloss over the fact that there was no link between Burisma and the US that would indicate any sort of corruption. Yes, there is evidence that Hunter sold the illusion of influence and I've said time and time again I think we should strengthen our laws to prevent that, but it happens all the time and not just with family members.

As I've mentioned before, I've worked with lawyers who monetized far more than the "illusion of influence." I've worked with more than a few specialists who were well-paid because they were able to pick up the phone and call someone in DC to get a problem resolved. Regulatory capture by virtue of the revolving door of ex-government officials is real in the US and far more pernicious than Hunter selling the illusion of access. I would like to see everything addressed so that no one can monetize these connections. There is a lot of work to do.

Generally you've made your point clear. You find both Trump and Biden to be disqualifying.

calbear93 said:

---

I am not him but I would resist until I felt both instances of corruption were investigated. If, like here, you want to excuse Biden and use it as political persecution of Trump only, then no. If both will be investigated, I would be thrilled. Shine sunlight on both corrupt families. Take politics out of it. Just have not seen that anyone here will stand of principle and not tribalism. I for one would love it if both parties were subject to the same standards and we could apply the standards equally independent of our political leanings. But that has not been the case even in theory and debate here.

---

I agree that we should investigate both families with the same standard.

I did not attack you professionally. If I did, it was not intentional. I think you are one of the more knowledgeable posters and I have great respect for your professional expertise.

I think the reasonable conclusion is that the foreign corporation was trying to get influence either to pressure the local jurisdiction or open a market. Again not a US public company, but if it were, the SEC would go after the company even without an existing revenue or profit in the country for violation of ICFR. No one has a line item for bribery in the earnings statement. Why would the SEC do this? Because bribery to get influence even without business in the country is still corruption.

I honestly don't understand how you get from his emails claiming he can give access to Joe (whether it happened or not), threaten action by Joe and admission he was selling his name and access to Joe and claim in all reasonableness and fairness he was hired for his governance expertise and not for influence.

The new "Special Counsel" is another cover-up operation (information silo), just like discredited John Durham.

Federal regulation requires 'special counsel' appointees to be 'selected from outside' government—Hunter Biden investigator Weiss is DOJ attorneyhttps://t.co/Zu1OeE2kMC

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) August 12, 2023

Should you two get a room?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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?

---

Unit, I have been there for some time, so maybe it's you joining me. I wish Trump nothing but jail if he is found guilty and if found innocent I find him one of the most despicable humans alive with his behavior. I am all for full media questioning of every shred of evidence on Biden (forget Hunter, he's scum). There has been no incisive looks by major media on the Biden affair. Think you are old enough to remember Woodward & Bernstein. Would like them in their day to have at both Trump and Biden. What you don't understand is that every time someone mentions Trump, I don't call out Biden. But every time someone mentions Biden in Off Topic, Trump did it and worse comes up. Yup maybe. But does not mean Biden is innocent. There is a lot of solid evidence there of cover up. Do your own research, but take off your blue colored glasses and try to be unbiased in doing that research. There is smoke on both sides.

Not equal justice.

Counsel for Donald Trump respond to DC Judge Tanya Chutkan's expedited schedule -

Her decision to ignore Local Rules and give "Trump less than one business day to respond to this important Motion is a concerning development, inconsistent with his due process rights." pic.twitter.com/qtuELmU9Rt

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) August 7, 2023

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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?

---

Unit, I have been there for some time, so maybe it's you joining me. I wish Trump nothing but jail if he is found guilty and if found innocent I find him one of the most despicable humans alive with his behavior. I am all for full media questioning of every shred of evidence on Biden (forget Hunter, he's scum). There has been no incisive looks by major media on the Biden affair. Think you are old enough to remember Woodward & Bernstein. Would like them in their day to have at both Trump and Biden. What you don't understand is that every time someone mentions Trump, I don't call out Biden. But every time someone mentions Biden in Off Topic, Trump did it and worse comes up. Yup maybe. But does not mean Biden is innocent. There is a lot of solid evidence there of cover up. Do your own research, but take off your blue colored glasses and try to be unbiased in doing that research. There is smoke on both sides.

---

I would like to see some unbiased research and reporting as well. You've been promising that there is more to drop and now you've alluded to a cover up.

What are you referring to and where is that information coming from? As far as I can tell, all we have is fake whistleblowers and misleading claims by untrustworthy people. And I don't see Congress investigating the Trump family at all.

I think we both know why they only have eyes for Hunter and it's not because they are unbiased.

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:

---

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??

---

I tried to warn you. LOL.

Lots of Republicans - including James Comer - have criticized Kushner. Where are the prominent dems criticizing Biden?

https://nypost.com/2023/08/10/comer-says-jared-kushner-crossed-the-line-of-ethics-by-accepting-2-billion-saudi-investment/

It truly is common sense. There is no innocent explanation for what Hunter (and the other Bidens did). You don't set up shell companies that have no purpose and no obvious business other than to collect excessive "fees" when no service are rendered. The Bidens did it. The Trumps did it. The Clintons did it . I'm not aware of the Obamas or Bushes doing it - but it wouldn't surprise if the have or do in the future.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit, I have been there for some time, so maybe it's you joining me. I wish Trump nothing but jail if he is found guilty and if found innocent I find him one of the most despicable humans alive with his behavior.

---

Joe Biden is widely known to grope, caress and sniff women and children IN PUBLIC.

BearGoggles 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:

---

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??

---

I tried to warn you. LOL.

Lots of Republicans - including James Comer - have criticized Kushner. Where are the prominent dems criticizing Biden?

https://nypost.com/2023/08/10/comer-says-jared-kushner-crossed-the-line-of-ethics-by-accepting-2-billion-saudi-investment/

It truly is common sense. There is no innocent explanation for what Hunter (and the other Bidens did). You don't set up shell companies that have no purpose and no obvious business other than to collect excessive "fees" when no service are rendered. The Bidens did it. The Trumps did it. The Clintons did it . I'm not aware of the Obamas or Bushes doing it - but it wouldn't surprise if the have or do in the future.

---

Cool, why isn't Comer investigating Kushmer? He's killed congressional investigations into Trump and started ones on Biden. It's nice to see that yesterday he mildly criticized Kushner, let's see him back it up.

A few months ago he said it wasn't "politically sustainable" to investigate Kushner. Why do you think that Comer would have said that? Does that sound like a desire to hold Kushner accountable?

There are democrats who've criticized Hunter - Jim Hines most recently.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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?

---

Unit, I have been there for some time, so maybe it's you joining me. I wish Trump nothing but jail if he is found guilty and if found innocent I find him one of the most despicable humans alive with his behavior. I am all for full media questioning of every shred of evidence on Biden (forget Hunter, he's scum). There has been no incisive looks by major media on the Biden affair. Think you are old enough to remember Woodward & Bernstein. Would like them in their day to have at both Trump and Biden. What you don't understand is that every time someone mentions Trump, I don't call out Biden. But every time someone mentions Biden in Off Topic, Trump did it and worse comes up. Yup maybe. But does not mean Biden is innocent. There is a lot of solid evidence there of cover up. Do your own research, but take off your blue colored glasses and try to be unbiased in doing that research. There is smoke on both sides.

---

I would like to see some unbiased research and reporting as well. You've been promising that there is more to drop and now you've alluded to a cover up.

What are you referring to and where is that information coming from? As far as I can tell, all we have is fake whistleblowers and misleading claims by untrustworthy people. And I don't see Congress investigating the Trump family at all.

I think we both know why they only have eyes for Hunter and it's not because they are unbiased.

---

Go to hell Unit. I am not "promising" anything. I am suggesting that there is a ton of evidence out there that needs unbiased folks unlike you and me to expose. Simple as that. In the future your basis is unworthy of discussion. When you say "fake whistleblowers" you lose ALL credibiltiy if you ever had any. There goes "Trump family" again in any consideration of malfeasance with Biden. You are uncredible. Not worthy of discussion.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BearGoggles 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:

---

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??

---

I tried to warn you. LOL.

Lots of Republicans - including James Comer - have criticized Kushner. Where are the prominent dems criticizing Biden?

https://nypost.com/2023/08/10/comer-says-jared-kushner-crossed-the-line-of-ethics-by-accepting-2-billion-saudi-investment/

It truly is common sense. There is no innocent explanation for what Hunter (and the other Bidens did). You don't set up shell companies that have no purpose and no obvious business other than to collect excessive "fees" when no service are rendered. The Bidens did it. The Trumps did it. The Clintons did it . I'm not aware of the Obamas or Bushes doing it - but it wouldn't surprise if the have or do in the future.

---

Cool, why isn't Comer investigating Kushmer? He's killed congressional investigations into Trump and started ones on Biden. It's nice to see that yesterday he mildly criticized Kushner, let's see him back it up.

A few months ago he said it wasn't "politically sustainable" to investigate Kushner. Why do you think that Comer would have said that? Does that sound like a desire to hold Kushner accountable?

There are democrats who've criticized Hunter - Jim Hines most recently.

---

I assume the republicans (and, notably, the Democrats who control the Senate) are not investigating Kushner because:

1. Kushner's Saudi transaction happened after he left office - doesn't make it less gross but certainly is different then if it had happened while Trump was in office. CF Hunter (and James) who have traded on Joe's influence the entire time he's in office going back decades. In contrast, the Saudi's have no problem influencing or getting access to Trump w/o Kushner - Trump was as pro Saudi as they come.

2. Kushner's Saudi transaction is widely known and in the open. Kushner has not hidden the existence of the transaction or the nature of the services he's providing. He has an established an investment fund and he's not funneling $$ through shell corporations. He's selling investment advice/management - not access to Trump. Again CF Hunter.

3. Pretty much every notably national newspaper has investigated (and criticized) Kushner. The details are widely reported and, while gross and wrong, there is no allegation that Kushner has violated any laws. CF Hunter and Joe.

https://www.google.com/search?q=saudi+investment+with+kushner&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS919US919&oq=saudi+investment+with+kushner&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDcxMzhqMGo0qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

4. Kushner's paid his taxes.

5. The DOJ and Congress have investigated pretty much any alleged criminal violation by the Trump family including two impeachments and the currently pending state and federal indictments - CF the Bidens.

6. We have undisputed evidence that Hunter committed tax, FARA, drug, gun and human trafficking violations, none of which have (as of yet) been charged by the DOJ. The republicans are investigating because the DOJ did not. Much of the republican outrage/frustration is the double standard.

7. Donald Trump does not incredulously claim he has "no knowledge" of Kushner's investments. CF Biden claiming Hunter never took money from China" - indisputably Biden lying his ass off.

None of this excuses Kushner, but there's also zero evidence that what he did is in any way criminal or (sadly) all that unusual. He cashed in on his government service - just like lots of people from both parties (the Clinton and Gore come to mind, but the revolving door is used by both parties).

Kushner got the Saudi investment in large part they view him as having political clout and probably in gratitude for his pro-Saudi middle east positions.

I'll join Calbear93 in both acknowledging and condemning that across the board. Unlike you, I won't create fantastical arguments suggesting that what Kushner did is unclear or ok.

PS - who the hell is Jim Hines? I had to google to figure that out. If that's the most prominent Dem criticizing Biden that you can point to then you've actually made my point.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Go to hell Unit. I am not "promising" anything. I am suggesting that there is a ton of evidence out there that needs unbiased folks unlike you and me to expose. Simple as that. In the future your basis is unworthy of discussion. When you say "fake whistleblowers" you lose ALL credibiltiy if you ever had any. There goes "Trump family" again in any consideration of malfeasance with Biden. You are uncredible. Not worthy of discussion.

---

Here's what you said a few weeks ago.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Be patient sy, be patient.... It's all coming....Of course if the DOJ issues a Saturday lockup for the witness after him being loose for 1 1/2 years after conviction, then evidence may be jailed. Doesn't the shenanigans of the DOJ and FBI even leave you a bit concerned about being an American moving forward, irrespective of political persuasion. And if you think not, try to imagine why all the hate on the side other than you. Don't be an intellectual midget.

---

Seems like you have some knowledge of something coming down the pike.

We haven't seen any evidence of Biden interfering with the DOJ's investigation. The whistleblowers testified to "interference" from Trump's DOJ which they also testified was consistent with how other cases are treated. The whistleblower's were complete duds for the GOP and pretty much everyone sees that at this point.

It's not too early to declare Hunter a scumbag who has made a lot of mistakes. I am still in wait and see mode on whether Joe has played a role in this.

I support the DOJ continuing to investigate without interference and the elevation of Weiss, a Trump appointee, to special counsel certain seems like it would uncover any serious wrongdoing. Unlike with Trump, who fired Sessions for appointing Mueller and then fired Barr for not helping with the big lie, Joe hasn't made any public statements criticizing the special counsel or his DOJ whatsoever. Certainly you can see how that's preferable to the way Trump handled things.

If Biden is shown to have engaged in the sorts of shenanigans that the GOP has to this point baselessly alluded, I would welcome his impeachment and removal from office and will hope VP Harris does a good job when elevated to the Presidency.

Be well.

The old saying, "Tell me who you go with, I'll tell you who you are".

The Bidens did business with utterly corrupt Ukraine, Romania, and CCP Communist China.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think we both know why they only have eyes for Hunter and it's not because they are unbiased.

---

Don’t forget … 51 former intelligence agents have confirmed that Hunter’s laptop is Russia disinformation.

This witch-hunt has to end.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Press Release (parody) (@AOCpressTwo) August 12, 2023

movielover said:

---

The old saying, "Tell me who you go with, I'll tell you who you are".

The Bidens did business with utterly corrupt Ukraine, Romania, and CCP Communist China.

---

I can name another recent President that did business with Russia, Saudi Arabia and and CCP Communist China and that's just for starters.

The Wall Street UniParty is pushing already-over Ron DeSanctimonious.

He's failed in multiple ways, even with hundreds of Millions from anti-Trump RINOs.

tRump Derangement Syndrome is the affliction that was suffered by Ashli Babbitt, Craig Robertson, and every moron serving time or about to serve time because they believed they were carrying out Fatso's directives on January 6. Hopefully thousands of others can find a cure before they end up on a slab or behind bars.

BearHunter said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think we both know why they only have eyes for Hunter and it's not because they are unbiased.

---

Don’t forget … 51 former intelligence agents have confirmed that Hunter’s laptop is Russia disinformation.

This witch-hunt has to end.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Press Release (parody) (@AOCpressTwo) August 12, 2023

---

Looking forward to Unit2 and the other ardent progressives here calling out AOC for spreading misinformation.

It is provably false to say that 51 former intelligence agents "confirmed" the laptop was Russian disinformation. The purely partisan letter they signed made no such claim or confirmation - it alleged that the laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." Of course, it is now undisputed that the laptop was genuine and not disinformation (sourced from Russia or anywhere else).

By the standards of the left, AOC should be kicked off social media and fact checked to the end of the earth. I'll wait here for my friends on the left to condemn her.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Go to hell Unit. I am not "promising" anything. I am suggesting that there is a ton of evidence out there that needs unbiased folks unlike you and me to expose. Simple as that. In the future your basis is unworthy of discussion. When you say "fake whistleblowers" you lose ALL credibiltiy if you ever had any. There goes "Trump family" again in any consideration of malfeasance with Biden. You are uncredible. Not worthy of discussion.

---

Here's what you said a few weeks ago.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Be patient sy, be patient.... It's all coming....Of course if the DOJ issues a Saturday lockup for the witness after him being loose for 1 1/2 years after conviction, then evidence may be jailed. Doesn't the shenanigans of the DOJ and FBI even leave you a bit concerned about being an American moving forward, irrespective of political persuasion. And if you think not, try to imagine why all the hate on the side other than you. Don't be an intellectual midget.

---

We haven't seen any evidence of Biden interfering with the DOJ's investigation. The whistleblowers testified to "interference" from Trump's DOJ which they also testified was consistent with how other cases are treated. The whistleblower's were complete duds for the GOP and pretty much everyone sees that at this point.

---

This is another lie (except for the final sentence which is unfounded opinion). You are shameless.

From PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/irs-whistleblowers-claim-justice-department-meddled-in-hunter-biden-investigation

"The whistle-blowers say those charges and this case are out of line with the norm. "

"Geoff, this was a long and, for the most part, substantive and serious hearing from both sides. These were not just any IRS agents.

These were two IRS investigators who were the chief two investigators in the Hunter Biden case. They gave a list of things that they said were out of the norm, unprecedented obstacles and changes in the way that this case worked.

Among a few of those things that they listed, first, at the top, they said that they were not allowed to search Joe Biden's home where Hunter Biden was living, that they were blocked from interviewing Biden grandchildren, who may have been able to give testimony about Hunter Biden's tax returns, that they were prominently not they did not see the felony tax charges that they recommended and which they said other prosecutors early in the case also agreed with.

And they also said they saw outside limits on David Weiss. He is the U.S. attorney in Delaware who is overseeing the prosecution and this plea deal in the Hunter Biden case. One of these two IRS whistle-blowers, Joseph Ziegler, this was his first time talking in public today.

He said he is a gay Democrat. He said this is not political, but that he did, in fact, see signs that there was something stifling that prosecutor."

The DOJ misconduct occurred under both the Trump and Biden DOJ's. And in fact, the final decision to not charge felonies, let the statute of limitations to expire, and try to give Hunter a slap on the wrist was the Biden DOJ.

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Go to hell Unit. I am not "promising" anything. I am suggesting that there is a ton of evidence out there that needs unbiased folks unlike you and me to expose. Simple as that. In the future your basis is unworthy of discussion. When you say "fake whistleblowers" you lose ALL credibiltiy if you ever had any. There goes "Trump family" again in any consideration of malfeasance with Biden. You are uncredible. Not worthy of discussion.

---

Here's what you said a few weeks ago.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Be patient sy, be patient.... It's all coming....Of course if the DOJ issues a Saturday lockup for the witness after him being loose for 1 1/2 years after conviction, then evidence may be jailed. Doesn't the shenanigans of the DOJ and FBI even leave you a bit concerned about being an American moving forward, irrespective of political persuasion. And if you think not, try to imagine why all the hate on the side other than you. Don't be an intellectual midget.

---

We haven't seen any evidence of Biden interfering with the DOJ's investigation. The whistleblowers testified to "interference" from Trump's DOJ which they also testified was consistent with how other cases are treated. The whistleblower's were complete duds for the GOP and pretty much everyone sees that at this point.

---

This is another lie (except for the final sentence which is unfounded opinion). You are shameless.

From PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/irs-whistleblowers-claim-justice-department-meddled-in-hunter-biden-investigation

"The whistle-blowers say those charges and this case are out of line with the norm. "

"Geoff, this was a long and, for the most part, substantive and serious hearing from both sides. These were not just any IRS agents.

These were two IRS investigators who were the chief two investigators in the Hunter Biden case. They gave a list of things that they said were out of the norm, unprecedented obstacles and changes in the way that this case worked.

Among a few of those things that they listed, first, at the top, they said that they were not allowed to search Joe Biden's home where Hunter Biden was living, that they were blocked from interviewing Biden grandchildren, who may have been able to give testimony about Hunter Biden's tax returns, that they were prominently not they did not see the felony tax charges that they recommended and which they said other prosecutors early in the case also agreed with.

And they also said they saw outside limits on David Weiss. He is the U.S. attorney in Delaware who is overseeing the prosecution and this plea deal in the Hunter Biden case. One of these two IRS whistle-blowers, Joseph Ziegler, this was his first time talking in public today.

He said he is a gay Democrat. He said this is not political, but that he did, in fact, see signs that there was something stifling that prosecutor."

The DOJ misconduct occurred under both the Trump and Biden DOJ's. And in fact, the final decision to not charge felonies, let the statute of limitations to expire, and try to give Hunter a slap on the wrist was the Biden DOJ.

---

So.much.corruption.

BearGoggles said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

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.

(snip)

---

U2, why is it that you make it contentious and then accuse me of being contentious? That is a bad habit of yours.

(snip)

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??

---

I tried to warn you. LOL

---

You did try to warn him. But the one thing a BI Off Topic Forum Democrat can never do (and to be fair, this is true outside this little slice of the Internet too, but I'm mocking the hypocrisy here) is have a good faith argument. Ultimately when the talking points fail, they resort to ad hominem and pretend they won the debate.

When you’ve lost Chuck Todd… https://t.co/sPWgTuFZn3

— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) August 14, 2023

There are 2 kinds of people who deny Joe Biden’s massive corruption in Ukraine—the dupes & the hacks. Most deniers are dupes. They sometimes follow mainstream media, talk with equally ignorant friends & believe what they’re told. The hacks are the liars who know but don’t care.

— Max Abrahms (@MaxAbrahms) August 12, 2023

I'm just here to laugh at the dupes.

10% For The Big Guy said:

---

I'm just here to laugh at the dupes.

---

I'm here to troll the hacks. I know they know.

bearister said:

---

tRump Derangement Syndrome is the affliction that was suffered by Ashli Babbitt, Craig Robertson, and every moron serving time or about to serve time because they believed they were carrying out Fatso's directives on January 6. Hopefully thousands of others can find a cure before they end up on a slab or behind bars.

---

Bearister - I think deep down you must realize that many of the conservative voters like me who voted, donated, and maybe even campaigned for Biden because of Trump have come to the realization that Biden and his son are just another color of the same bag of cr@p and will not vote for Biden again just because people like you keep bringing out Trump as a reason.

It is not that people like me now think Trump is electable. It's that Biden and potentially Harris are not electable either. It is no longer the lesser of the two evil when neither is acceptable. I don't think most liberals realize how folks like me who are not fully committed to the liberal causes are disgusted with Biden. And the more you mention Trump instead of addressing and not covering up Biden, the more desensitized we become to Trump.

It may not ultimately matter, but Democrats should do more than just try to scare people with Trump. There were a lot of close elections in purple states that just barely went to Biden. People like me are tired of hearing about how bad Trump is. Unless I start to be convinced the Democrats are not equally corrupt and incompetent, it will soon just be in one ear and out the other. And you may end up with Trump and wonder what happened. What happen will be that the Democrats thought they could take independent voters for granted by keep referring to Trump and not realizing or being willfully blind to how horrible Biden is.

BearGoggles said:

---

Looking forward to Unit2 and the other ardent progressives here calling out AOC for spreading misinformation.

It is provably false to say that 51 former intelligence agents "confirmed" the laptop was Russian disinformation. The purely partisan letter they signed made no such claim or confirmation - it alleged that the laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." Of course, it is now undisputed that the laptop was genuine and not disinformation (sourced from Russia or anywhere else).

By the standards of the left, AOC should be kicked off social media and fact checked to the end of the earth. I'll wait here for my friends on the left to condemn her.

---

Why would we call out AOC for a tweet by a parody account? Should she be held responsible for Elon Musk turning Twitter into a right wing pillar of misinformation as well?

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Go to hell Unit. I am not "promising" anything. I am suggesting that there is a ton of evidence out there that needs unbiased folks unlike you and me to expose. Simple as that. In the future your basis is unworthy of discussion. When you say "fake whistleblowers" you lose ALL credibiltiy if you ever had any. There goes "Trump family" again in any consideration of malfeasance with Biden. You are uncredible. Not worthy of discussion.

---

Here's what you said a few weeks ago.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Be patient sy, be patient.... It's all coming....Of course if the DOJ issues a Saturday lockup for the witness after him being loose for 1 1/2 years after conviction, then evidence may be jailed. Doesn't the shenanigans of the DOJ and FBI even leave you a bit concerned about being an American moving forward, irrespective of political persuasion. And if you think not, try to imagine why all the hate on the side other than you. Don't be an intellectual midget.

---

We haven't seen any evidence of Biden interfering with the DOJ's investigation. The whistleblowers testified to "interference" from Trump's DOJ which they also testified was consistent with how other cases are treated. The whistleblower's were complete duds for the GOP and pretty much everyone sees that at this point.

---

This is another lie (except for the final sentence which is unfounded opinion). You are shameless.

From PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/irs-whistleblowers-claim-justice-department-meddled-in-hunter-biden-investigation

"The whistle-blowers say those charges and this case are out of line with the norm. "

"Geoff, this was a long and, for the most part, substantive and serious hearing from both sides. These were not just any IRS agents.

These were two IRS investigators who were the chief two investigators in the Hunter Biden case. They gave a list of things that they said were out of the norm, unprecedented obstacles and changes in the way that this case worked.

Among a few of those things that they listed, first, at the top, they said that they were not allowed to search Joe Biden's home where Hunter Biden was living, that they were blocked from interviewing Biden grandchildren, who may have been able to give testimony about Hunter Biden's tax returns, that they were prominently not they did not see the felony tax charges that they recommended and which they said other prosecutors early in the case also agreed with.

And they also said they saw outside limits on David Weiss. He is the U.S. attorney in Delaware who is overseeing the prosecution and this plea deal in the Hunter Biden case. One of these two IRS whistle-blowers, Joseph Ziegler, this was his first time talking in public today.

He said he is a gay Democrat. He said this is not political, but that he did, in fact, see signs that there was something stifling that prosecutor."

The DOJ misconduct occurred under both the Trump and Biden DOJ's. And in fact, the final decision to not charge felonies, let the statute of limitations to expire, and try to give Hunter a slap on the wrist was the Biden DOJ.

---

Nice try. First - you ignored that this primarily happened under Trump's DOJ. Second - you ignore the main point I had which is that the vast majority of the time prosecutors disagree with the star whistleblower. This was a nothingbirger and there is a reason that even the right wing media lost interest in the whistleblowers. They were duds and didn't implicate Joe Biden or his administration.

I respect the courage it takes to be a whistleblower. But Mr. Shapley, by his own admission, has disagreed with his colleagues “a vast majority” of the time. https://t.co/JqVGbhBYKZ

— Rep. Ro Khanna (@RepRoKhanna) July 19, 2023

BearGoggles said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think we both know why they only have eyes for Hunter and it's not because they are unbiased.

---

Don’t forget … 51 former intelligence agents have confirmed that Hunter’s laptop is Russia disinformation.

This witch-hunt has to end.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Press Release (parody) (@AOCpressTwo) August 12, 2023

---

Looking forward to Unit2 and the other ardent progressives here calling out AOC for spreading misinformation.

It is provably false to say that 51 former intelligence agents "confirmed" the laptop was Russian disinformation. The purely partisan letter they signed made no such claim or confirmation - it alleged that the laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." Of course, it is now undisputed that the laptop was genuine and not disinformation (sourced from Russia or anywhere else).

By the standards of the left, AOC should be kicked off social media and fact checked to the end of the earth. I'll wait here for my friends on the left to condemn her.

---

LOL . . . BearGoggles doesn't realize that is a parody account. OK Boomer!