This will be the next Republican talking point

[deckeda]

WaPo wrote:
A career State Department official overseeing Ukraine policy told congressional investigators this week that he had raised concerns in early 2015 about then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son serving on the board of a Ukrainian energy company but was turned away by a Biden staffer, according to three people familiar with the testimony.

George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, testified Tuesday that he worried that Hunter Biden’s position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality rules surrounding the deposition.

Kent said he had concerns that Ukrainian officials would view Hunter Biden as a conduit for currying influence with his father, said the people. But when Kent raised the issue with Biden’s office, he was told the then-vice president didn’t have the “bandwidth” to deal with the issue involving his son as his other son, Beau, was battling cancer, said the people familiar with his testimony.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

Kent was worried Ukraine would think it might look bad. He wasn't saying Hunter Biden would be a conduit for corruption. Expect Republicans to conflate Kent's concern for optics with a non-existent concern for corruption.

[rjmacs]

Almost makes you think we'd be better off with a candidate less susceptible to this kind of attack....... Hrm......

[deckeda]

We will be if Warren keeps rising. But after we nominate someone else and Trump makes up something of irrelevance about them, this will fade away.

[SteveG]

Why settle for Quid Quo golf clubs when you can go Quid Pro Quos for a bit extra?

[pdq]

From the same article, later:

A former senior Biden national security aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, had no recollection of hearing about Kent’s concerns, and also never heard a concern raised by the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine at the time. The first time the aide recalls Hunter Biden’s involvement surfacing as an issue was in December 2015, when the vice president traveled to Ukraine to deliver an anti-corruption speech and the New York Times wrote about his son’s role. Hunter Biden’s board appointment had been publicly announced the previous year and reported by the media at the time.

The aide said...“Did it have any effect on US policies, either on what we were doing or what the Ukrainians were doing? It didn’t..."

Was it wrong and stupid for Biden's son to cash in on his name while Biden was VP? Yup. But this President's kids do that all the time. Dubya cashed in on the Bush name all his life. Would Liz Cheney remotely be in Congress if she weren't "Cheney"?

Yes, it's almost certain that Trumpies will try to make something out of this. For any thinking person, I suspect it will be as convincing as Donald Trump Jr. recent decrying of sons cashing in on their fathers' name.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

pdq wrote: Was it wrong and stupid for Biden's son to cash in on his name while Biden was VP? Yup. But this President's kids do that all the time. Dubya cashed in on the Bush name all his life. Would Liz Cheney remotely be in Congress if she weren't "Cheney"?

:agree:

About time for Biden to drag out his dead son for some beating.

[rjmacs]

Defending Hunter Biden may not be our best strategy here. "Everyone does it" is precisely the current White House logic for defending their misdeeds - we could do better than to emulate it.

[hal]

pdq wrote: Was it wrong and stupid for Biden's son to cash in on his name while Biden was VP? Yup. But this President's kids do that all the time. Dubya cashed in on the Bush name all his life. Would Liz Cheney remotely be in Congress if she weren't "Cheney"?

Putting the Bidens in the same company as the Cheneys and Bushes doesn't do him any favors.

What Hunter was doing is just plain gross and we all know it. Not illegal, but very unsavory - making money for having an important dad. This is behavior we like to attach to repubs. There is nothing wrong with saying that it's wrong without the whataboutism. Joe is not acknowledging this at all and it's pissing me off.

[rjmacs]

hal wrote:

Joe is not acknowledging this at all and it's pissing me off.

Pretty sure that Joe's not going to throw Hunter under the bus at this point. Not a great look for a father, or a career politician who's doing all right as a result.

[deckeda]

Hunter has already acknowledged his "bad judgment." You would think that counts for something.

What are we supposed to do, demand Joe explicitly say it also? I get it, Joe isn't pure enough otherwise. Give me a break.

This issue remains one that doesn't need serious political defending.

Joe is not acknowledging this at all and it's pissing me off. No Hal, it's not the Biden's pissing you off. It's the Trump family, who took every notion of centuries-old nepotism and blew a hole right through it.

As for litigating the optics of everyone that came before (including Hunter Biden and his dad) why don't we spend our time assessing if they DID anything wrong vs if it looks like they could have done something wrong? Oh wait, that already happened.