Positions on this and have platforms that include guidelines and regulations aimed at preventing even the appearance of unethical behavior for govt officials and their immediate family. They shouldn’t be expected to retract or alter those guidelines for this current story.

What Dems SHOULD do, and especially Biden, is to take the lead and turn the whole issue around to Trump, his children’s FAR more serious breaches of ethics, and construct a general anti-corruption platform for ALL Dems to match. Let the GOP drown in a quagmire of their own making.

her cabinet etc or be vice president if she wins the primary/caucus season and then beats Trump...but that is where it ends.. she has no right to tell others how or who their grown children will work for.. no one does.. and there is nothing wrong with what the Hunter Biden did.. he did not break any laws.. etc etc etc.. now Trumps children who are working for the government as advisers.. different ball game... Hunter Biden was not a government employee.. there was nothing unethical..

I am proud as hell of Joe Biden for not moving an inch and letting that blowhard in the White House get away with this.. It really is sad to see the republicans run and hide, scared to death of that nutjob.. but that is their problem not ours..

Chris Heinz chose to follow the strictest interpretation of those guidelines when he bowed out of his partnership with Hunter. He didn’t want to put his stepfather, the Sec of State, in the position of being forced to answer for even an APPEARANCE of unethical business dealings in Ukraine.

In your honest heart you know we all wish Hunter had listened to his partner and made the exact same choice.

No Democrat should alter their longheld positions. They do need to be deft in their answers so it is not twisted into an attack on Biden.


BTW, for newer DU folks, Chris Heinz was one of our early DU members for a few years.

into someone who's happily proud that our Democratic frontrunners are honest? And says so?

Please finish your advice to turn him: What does Biden say to you to turn you to criticizing the Trump crime family instead of him?

Can you clarify?

say Biden needs to convince everyone of.

Biden: ____________,______________________________________________
________________________________________________!

You: "Thank you, Mr. VP! I still may vote for someone else in the primary, but I recognize and respect your integrity and the truth about Ukraine and will be saying so whenever appropriate from now on."

The American people that he believes strongly in anti-corruption principles and because of that he is announcing he will put in place strict regulations on government officials and their immediate family members in regard to overseas business deals and partnerships.

He can refer to his son’s situation by saying that even though there was nothing illegal or even unethical about his son’s actions, he understands that no Democratic official can afford even the slightest appearance of an ethics lapse as Republicans are willing to exaggerate every move in order to excuse their growing mountain of illegal and definitely unethical dealings overseas.

So, what’s YOUR perfect answer for Warren given that it is HER anti-corruption platform being targeted by RW media machine in hopes of painting her as a hypocrite. IMO, she has been answering deftly without undermining her personal positions or saying anything that could be used by GOP to smear Biden personally.

There are no magic words that will force anyone to be honest and thoughtful.

That's our duty.

Not my job or inclination to demand an honest exchange from you.

Joe is amazing in this editorial https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-biden-trump-wont-destroy-me-and-he-wont-destroy-my-family/2019/10/05/9544b9a4-e7cc-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html

Enough is enough. Every day — every few hours, seemingly — more evidence is uncovered revealing that President Trump is abusing the power of the presidency and is wholly unfit to be president. He is using the highest office in the land to advance his personal political interests instead of the national interest.

The president’s most recent violation of the rule of law — openly calling for China to interfere in our elections, as he stood on the South Lawn of the White House — is so outrageous, it’s clear he considers the presidency a free pass to do whatever he wants, with no accountability....

It is easy to be distracted by Trump’s daily outrages — to become obsessed with them or numb to them, or to normalize behavior that Americans would not have tolerated in any of the previous presidents in the nation’s history. Not me. While the House does its job on impeachment, I’m going to stay focused on what matters: remaking education so every child in the country is equipped to succeed in the 21st century; getting weapons of war off the streets and ending the epidemic of gun violence; building on Obamacare so that every American has access to quality, affordable health care; taking on the climate emergency imperiling the planet; and much more. I’m going to fight to ensure that the United States is once again the leader of the free world; a champion of democracy; and the bulwark of a stable, peaceful international order.

And to Trump and those who facilitate his abuses of power, and all the special interests funding his attacks against me: Please know that I’m not going anywhere. You won’t destroy me, and you won’t destroy my family. And come November 2020, I intend to beat you like a drum.

And we’re supposed to wonder why a truck driver working 70 hrs a week thinks we’re full of it?

You think that’s good politics for Democrats?

Think people think.

the nay sayers have been trying to knock him down from the beginning

We have a President using his position to lie and smear an opponent's son who isn't involved in the campaign. And if that works, he will find a way to use "optics" to do the same thing to the next front runner. This transcends the primary. We can't allow this behavior to become more normalized than it already has. You need to think about that before telling others to think.

if he is elected President, how should he respond in a way that would be best for his candidacy?

President or not, his son is a free, private citizen who has the right to, with very little exceptions, work for or with any company he wants. Its none of Joe Biden's business or anyone else's business. And thats how he should respond. "Its none of my business and I have no legal right to make it my business". I don't know or care if thats what is "best for his candidacy". I prefer cold, hard honesty. And that is the honest reality of it.

and they will answer in ways that make sense for them personally and politically. Most are doing the two-step; no on VP’s children serving on the board of foreign governments, and then pivoting to Trump’s impeachable offense for blackmailing Ukraine. They are not going to march in lockstep with what the Biden campaign or his supporters might want them to say, not should they be expected to.

Its an obviously cynical way of trying to take points off Biden in the polls knowing full damn well they can't control the lives of family members, not even their own, let alone their VPs. I fully believe if and when one of them is the target of something this sinister, Joe would fully have their backs. Booker and Castro and Harris have been the hardest on Joe during debates, yet all 3 have taken a strong stance in defense of Biden when it comes to this. Every single Democratic candidate should show the same integrity.

Ask her how she would enforce this. Probably something really complicated like during the vetting process telling the candidate this is a red line, do you have a problem with that and making it clear that any violation would result in a permanent breach in their relationship.

You shouldn’t rule out cynicism in any of this. Virtue signaling, yes, but also careerism for people who would like to be fondly recalled in the event of a Biden presidency. Kind of interesting that the three candidates you mention have each had their run-ins with Joe. Maybe they see this moment as an opportunity for damage control. More convoluted things have happened in primary contests.

the right answer is, no, they shouldn't let their VP's child sit on the board of a foreign company.

Having said that, this is so far down the list of things to be concerned about as to well not be concerned about it.

Nor should they. You can't just go stripping freedom away from someone because of who they are related to.

It's called ethics.

And if the president says no, the VP is going to say got it.

....regardless of what the VP says or doesn't say. Grown adults have full freedom to be employed in any legal profession they wish. Whether you or your preferred candidate likes it or not.... we don't take away people's freedoms based on who their father or mother is. And there isn't a single unethical thing about that, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.

If my parents try to tell me not to take a perfectly legal job that I wanted to take, I would tell them its none of their business.... not that my parents would try a shitty thing like that in the first place.

it's basic ethics.

Again, it's minor, and if your parents didn't tell you to not take a job that was unethical to take, then you'd be pretty "shitty" for not turning it down.

There was nothing unethical about Hunter taking a job offer, it doesn't matter what country it was in. But your "logic", none of them can take any jobs with American corporations either because their parents administration might investigate someone in that company or have sway over regulations that regulate that company's industry or have direct responsibility when it comes to tax policies that impact said company.

You're just wrong to act like its an ethics issue. It isn't and its silly to suggest that it is.

sure there is something unethical about taking a job that you have zero experience in, where you don't speak the language just because your father is the VP.

IF there is a corporation that wants to hire him for his actual skills, no, nothing wrong with that whether here or overseas.

But there was only one reason he was given that job.

So you don't appear to understand my logic very well at all. You've inserted the defend this at all cost logic chip instead.

Hunter has decades of experience working in business law, finance, investment, management and serving on boards for Amtrak and various charities. He has executive experience. One does not need to necessarily have worked in the energy industry to join a board for an energy company. There are certain types of people that have all around general experience surrounding matters that every company needs that has nothing to do with the actual product. As a an applications developer, I've experienced this firsthand, taking jobs working for companies developing healthcare related software and customer resource management software for advertising sales, industries I had no experience with. But that wasn't important because I know how to gather requirements and develop software from them, it doesn't matter what the subject is.

Its not uncommon for businesses to hire people to consult with for them on general affairs that every single corporation in the world has to deal with and Hunter was and is suited for that kind of work, at least on paper. I know nothing about how good he is in that capacity and neither do you.

You don't know what all reasons he was given that job. You weren't there. You don't know anyone who was. You're just making stuff up to suit your narrative.

so he's SO experienced that they picked him for his amazing generalized experience, even though he doesn't speak a lick of Ukrainian to sit on their board NOT because he was the sitting VP's son?

LMAO

You don't even believe what you just wrote.

Burisma does business all over the world.

A lot of the more affluent, wealthier people in Ukraine speak English.

Numerous people who were asked to sit on that board were from other countries who don't speak Ukrainian.

Also, there is this thing called an "interpreter". Many corporations use them for the purpose of dealing with language barriers. You should google it sometime.

Language is not an issue in regard to this whole story. It doesn't matter. Not even a little bit.

You are again just making stuff up about a subject that you obviously know next to nothing about.

you're an internet warrior making claims.

There is nothing about Biden's son to suggest he's an expert such that Ukraine hired him for that "generalized expertise" (which is laughable) instead of because the most corrupt nation in Europe wanted to hire the son of the US VP because he was the son of the US VP.

You're trying to spin a web that says Ukraine didn't even care or know that he was the son of the American VP, as if they said...who's the guy we want? Oh this Biden guy seems to have "generalized expertise" let's grab him! Great, anyone know who his dad is? Nope, some guy named Joe, never heard of him.

Just stop. No one is buying this malarkey.

"There is nothing about Biden's son to suggest he's an expert such that Ukraine hired him for that "generalized expertise" (which is laughable) instead of because the most corrupt nation in Europe wanted to hire the son of the US VP because he was the son of the US VP."

Its not laughable. You know nothing about how talented Hunter Biden is or isn't. As I've said to others trying to push this right wing talking point, I'm honest enough to know that I don't know. I only know whats on his resume. And thats all you know. You know absolutely nothing else about it.

And the Chairman of the Board, Alan Apter did suggest they hired him for general business expertise.

And the nation of Ukraine didn't hire Hunter. Burisma is a private company, not a state owned company. So the "most corrupt nation in Europe" didn't hire Hunter at all. If you can't get that much right, you should just quit trying.

I never once said his last name hasn't helped him get his foot in a lot of doors. That doesn't mean he isn't qualified for whatever capacity they wanted him to work in.

The fact is, everything I've said is objective and correct and everything you've been saying is based on right wing smear machine propaganda that successfully gets people such as yourself to think you know things that you don't know.

You don't know anything about Hunter Biden's business acumen. You don't know anything about how much of a value he was or wasn't while serving on the Burisma board. Thats the bottom line. You. Don't. Know. Deal with it.

when has anyone ever been hired for a job where the person hiring feels it necessary to say "this is totally based on merit"?
And nothing in that quote lists a single qualification of Biden. so now, it doesn't "suggest" that they hired him for his "general business expertise." Or how his attending board meetings and forums once or twice a year is worth 50K a month.

The idea that you think Burisma being a private country means it is immune to the rampant corruption in Ukraine is hilarious.

There is nothing "on his resume" that suggests he is an expert in "best corporate practices" or whatever "the strongest concentration of professional staff" is supposed to mean.

If that's the best you got no wonder no one else is buying it and you keep having to explain "to others" why this is totally normal and cool.

Maybe you shoulda stuck with "Joe can't tell his son what to do." At least that was a little more honest and had some possible truth to it.

See, I can do the silly lol thing for every reply title too.

when has anyone ever been hired for a job where the person hiring feels it necessary to say "this is totally based on merit"?

I believe it was in the context of asking the very question you are asking (well not really asking, you're just making baseless accusations without any knowledge about how this stuff works).

And nothing in that quote lists a single qualification of Biden. so now, it doesn't "suggest" that they hired him for his "general business expertise." Or how his attending board meetings and forums once or twice a year is worth 50K a month.

Putting together a top notch staff and guiding a company on business practices is the EPITOME of what people with general business expertise offer among a plethora of other things

The idea that you think Burisma being a private country means it is immune to the rampant corruption in Ukraine is hilarious.

No, no, don't try to change the subject and run away from your own words. You said the Ukraine hired him. The Ukraine did not hire him. That was more evidence that you don't really know anything about this story and that you haven't even done the most elementary research on it. You got caught and you're not getting off the hook on that one.

If that's the best you got no wonder no one else is buying it and you keep having to explain "to others" why this is totally normal and cool.

Actually a lot of people are "buying it", people who know what they are talking about and understand how corporations often bring in people to their boardrooms to advise and consult. There is nothing uncommon about this at all.

Maybe you shoulda stuck with "Joe can't tell his son what to do." At least that was a little more honest and had some possible truth to it.

Everything I've said is true. I've asserted that I know what Hunter Biden's resume is. His resume doesn't look any different from that of a lot of people who get paid too much money to sit on corporate boards (the too much money thing being a totally different issue that is part of corporate culture all over the world).

You're the one making the dishonest argument. You pretend to know how qualified Hunter Biden is in such a capacity. You don't. You acted like speaking Ukrainian is an issue regardless of the fact that large corporations all over the world hire people that don't speak the native language of the corporations base country. You're the one that is acting like you were sitting there in the boardroom or listening in on conference calls or talking directly to others in the company about what it is that Hunter was doing... I mean you'd had to be doing at least one of those things to know any of the stuff you are PRETENDING to know.

You're out of your league here. You'd be better off just trying to support your candidate on the issues instead of gleefully participating in a right wing smear job against a private citizen who never did a single thing to you. But, that does say a lot about your character.

So the answer to when has anyone ever been hired for a job where the hirer feels compelled to say the hire is totally based on merit is
when everyone thinks the hiring wasn't based on merit. I've been hired for all sorts of jobs, no one ever felt the need to say...hey, I just want everyone to know, we hired this guy based on merit.

LOL at "epitome." First, there is no such thing as "general business expertise." Second, there is no evidence Hunter HAS general business expertise. He's worked on ecommerce and as a lobbyist...sure, he sat on some boards but INTERESTINGLY enough, he left those boards when his dad was elected VP (why it's almost as if, ya know, there's a good reason to do that). And he's been a venture capitalist. He graduated law school in 96 and by 98 he was a VP at MBNA which is, of course, HQ'd in Delaware. Hmmm...what an amazing attorney he must be, that's obviously no way related to who his dad is...his two years of experience clearly prepped him!

Then he became a lobbyist. His ties to his dad have served him well, and generally speaking, that's unfortunately how the world works, which is why I said ultimately it's not a huge issue. To call it no issue is ludicrous spin to toss out ethics for partisanship.

He didn't build anything. He hasn't spent years working in business gathering expertise. He's spent a year or two here, then there, then somewhere else, then he joined the reserves and got kicked out for cocaine. And then after all that, he shows up on a board in a company based in a super corrupt country that just happened to be desperate for American aid and ties and paid 50K a month to work once or twice a year.

If I'd switched out the names for a Bush kid or better yet, one of the Trump kids, you wouldn't be saying squat in defense.

And I'm not too worried about the character estimations of someone pushing the BS you are pushing. I would be more worried if you thought the opposite.

So what? He was asked if he was hired just because he is Biden's son and he said it was entirely based on merit. You've never been in that situation. You've never been the child of a President or Vice President. So your experience is irrelevant.



Yes there is. No matter what kind of industry you are in, every corporation needs people who can do certain things that all businesses need to have done. I'm not going to go through the list of those things again. You can figure it out for yourself. Though I am pretty sure you are being dishonest anyway. Most people are when they are losing an argument and don't want to.

You act like its uncommon for these entrepreneurial business types to not move around a lot. It isn't uncommon. Its quite the opposite. Its very common. This is more proof that you don't know what you're talking about.

You are lying when you say he didn't "build anything". He is a founder of an investment firm and a found of a venture capital firm. And he founded another investment firm in China. That 100% qualifies as "building something".

But now you are going DEEP into right wing territory by suggesting that Hunter had anything to do with Ukraine getting American aid. Not only does it make no sense because Burisma isn't owned by the Ukraine government, but its also the same flat out lie the Trumpsters have been trying to push. I wonder if you are really even a Democrat.

I don't have one bad thing to say about the Bush kids. And yes, I would defend them under these same circumstances. You are wrong about that (you should be getting use to being wrong by now). The Trump kids are a different story (at least the 3 oldest) because they actually work in the White House and are deeply involved in the campaign and the mudslinging. Its a completely different situation and it makes them fair game. But one thing I will never do is pretend to know how qualified someone is based on nothing but personal bias (unlike you) and engage in right wing smears against opponent's children who have nothing to do with the campaign (unlike you).

I'm not pushing any BS. I've backed up every single assertion I've made and have been honest about what I do and don't know about Hunter Biden. You have not. And thats why you are losing this argument.

having anything to do with American aid, I said it's assured that the Ukrainians HOPED that he would help in that regard.

The rest is just more of you playing the same tune defending something as ethical when you'd be better off just defending it as "well people do it all the time, it's not great but it's not that big of a deal"

Because that has the benefit of being true...unlike the rest of the stuff you are slinging.

he shows up on a board in a company based in a super corrupt country that just happened to be desperate for American aid

There is no other way to take that. You were drawing a line to Hunter's job and receiving American aid. Its right there in your own words.

It is ethical as long as everyone was following the law and not doing underhanded things to hurt other people. And everything we know so far, that has been the situation. I don't think anyone should get paid that much money for, well, really anything. But thats not the issue.

My main problems with you is that you are perpetuating right wing talking points and you can't bring yourself to admit that you don't really know how far Hunter Biden's talents extend. Thats what sad about it. You are pretending to know things about a person so that you can participate in smearing that person. Really, engaging in that kind of activity, you have no business talking about ethics at all.

yes a line was drawn from his job to American aid BY THE PEOPLE WHO HIRED HIM.

That says nothing about Biden or anyone else caring one whit about that, that's the difference between corruption and not corrupt.

You know like how Hunter quit the boards of American firms when his dad became VP.

then Hunter fell on hard times, and he took an easy job based on his ties to his dad.

Understandable. Not the ethically correct choice, but not a big deal either.

A "right wing talking point" is saying Biden did some sort of quid pro quo or intervene to stop an investigation, neither of which I have said.

A correct ethical position is that it's not ethically correct to have him sit on that board while his dad was VP.

See unlike you, I can separate out the two.

Whether you think he should've gotten the job or not, you can't just make shit up.

And where is your proof that he had "fallen on hard times". The cocaine thing got him kicked out of the Navy but he was still gainfully employed with BHR partners via his Rosemont Seneca investment firm. Also, he was employed in his capacity as a lawyer with Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, which from what I can tell, he still, to this day, is part of that law firm.

But hey, the ethics thing again, going WAY back in this conversation, your logic still doesn't pan out. By your bullshit ethical standards, no child of any President or any VP can serve on the board of any company in the United States.... because the exact same imaginary conflicts exists when you follow that slippery slope. If he was offered to be on the board of some US based company where his dad had regulatory authorities within that industry, does he have to turn that down to? No. He doesn't. Just don't break any laws and don't discuss anything related to the business with your dad. People are capable of living this way without doing anything wrong. We do it all the time.

and Burisma.

You can make up shit and put it in a headline all you want, people can actually read what I wrote, and apparently, understand it...except for you?

My ethical standards are the same ones Hunter followed when he left corporate boards here in the US once his dad became VP.

Those were your exact words. Maybe you have trouble communicating but that is exactly what you said.

There were no ties between Joe Biden and Burisma. His business partner Devon Archer was actually the catalyst that got him in with Burisma from everything I've read.

The board he left in 2009 was the Amtrak board. And I would've had no problem with him staying on there either. Again, as long as he isn't doing anything illegal and not influencing his dad to do favors for him, then its not unethical. Its only unethical when people actually do something unethical.

either you are really...not smart...or you are playing at being not smart...I have no idea which one.

1. Do you not understand that Hunter doing something DOES NOT mean that Joe signed off on it? That the Ukrainian company giving him a job for a particular reason does not mean that reason actually panned out? Do you REALLY have a hard time understanding the distinction between A doing something for B because of ties with C and C neither condoning nor being involved in that transaction?

If you can't figure it out at this point, I'm done trying to do the equivalent of explaining quantum physics to a cat.

2. Yeah, we get that YOU would have no ethical issues with him staying on the board.

Say what you mean, with precision and articulation.

That the Ukrainian company giving him a job for a particular reason does not mean that reason actually panned out?

Whats this "reason" that didn't pan out? Again, you are insinuating something without a shred of actual evidence. Its on you to prove that Hunter only got the job because of his name and not because his business partner was already getting involved with this company. Its on you to prove that Hunter didn't bring value in his capacity working with this company. You've utterly failed to do so.

There is no "we". You only speak for yourself. The voices in your head don't count as other individual people. And yes, people should be able to accept any job they want as long as they keep it clean. And as far as we know, Hunter has. His personal life has been a mess at times, but I've seen no substantial black marks in his professional life.

If your posts are any indication of how you would "teach" something, to a cat or otherwise, I think I'd go elsewhere for my quantum physics lecture.

I should have tried to explain quantum physics to my cat instead...better chance of success there then dealing with you.

Please don't take any job anywhere dealing with ethics.

It's a strategy that will work if Democrats can't successfully counter it.

The question is so narrowly framed that it immediately becomes suspect. Why just VP's children? Why not VP's cousins, second uncles or in-laws? And why limit this litmus test to just the VP? What about the rest of the Cabinet? And why limit their children's role to the board of a foreign company? Why exclude the management of foreign companies? Or financial officers? or tech officers? Or liaisons to government bodies? If there were any logic to the press asking a question like this, the list of prohibitions on a President's members of cabinet can be extended to no end.

There appears to be no distinction between the press asking the candidates whether they would let their VP's children sit on the board of a foreign company and asking whether they would have chosen Biden as their VP if they were President. If the answer to this question is "no, I wouldn't", it immediately delegitimizes Biden's eight years of being Obama's VP. Guess whose hands this plays into?

And, of course, there is the logistics of actually implementing whether a President can or cannot let their VP's children serve on the board of a foreign company. A President telling his VP to make his grown child leave his job is ridiculous. The only recourse a President has is fire the VP, or vet the candidates to make sure they don't have children on the boards of foreign companies, ever. Asking anyone whether they would "let" their children serve on the boards of foreign companies is ridiculous on its face. Dignifying such ridiculous question with a response, whatever the response may be, would reflect poorly on the respondent.

And that, my friends, is the bait.

the click bait questions, beastie boy.. you'd think the candidates themselves would know this. It's not as if the US m$$$media doesn't have an infamous reputation for going above and beyond their duty to fake highlight "both sides do it".

In the same way the entire nonsense about Elizabeth Warren's ancestry brouhaha will be a bait question. Does anyone really want our candidates to wade into that one? I don't think so.

Guaranteed Republicans will try to use it against Warren and Trump has already telegraphed he'll resurrect the faux controversy. They'll imply she used the NA ancestry card to get an upper footing somehow for employment, for educational perks. She did not. But that doesn't matter in the Trumplandia. You saw how Scott Brown went after her in the disgusting Senate race, jerks out there jumping around with tomahawks, whooping it up. That's the sort of thing Trump and his base just love to participate in.

When that happens (not if) all our Democratic candidates should rally around the manufactured 'scandal,' cry foul and defend Warren vociferously.

Why? Because it's the right thing to do and because we are stronger as a united front.

There is not a whiff of corruption around Joe Biden. None. Hunter Biden is a grown man who is not running for the presidency. We need to stop using Republican framing against our own and when the Republicans pull that out, we need to stomp on it. Not encourage it or throw the virtue signals in the air.

Cory Booker did a good job in his interview, referred to this whole strategy as 'moral vandalism.' Right on point!

Don't take the bait on any of this garbage. Because that's all it is, coming right out of Trump's pinched, pouty lips. His only hope is to distract and muddy the water because his own moral failings are blowing up in his face.

We cannot give him an edge this time out. He needs to be crushed and obliterated with every lie and distortion. And that's what the whole Biden 'scandal' is: a massive lie.

as a untied front!

The candidates should know better by now how the US m$$$media manipulates and manufactures.. going out of their way to make sure their readers know... "both sides" ya know.

Taking the bait could come back to bite them.. it's not going to help them.. only trump. He's the one who wants to destroy our Democracy.. the latest way by securing covert propaganda from foreign countries to gas light the American people.

But, he got busted and is accusing everyone else of his crimes. Don't help him.

The rest ARE interviewing for vp and cabinet positions.