Skip to main content

Hunter Biden in the Ukraine

Image result for Hunter Biden


Joe Biden's Democratic rivals are going to have to try to cut him down to size. Biden was becoming the Cascades Bigfoot of their fight for their party's nomination even before he announced he was running.

Now that he has announced that he IS running, Bigfoot is likely to turn into a Himalayan Yeti. (Yes, I'm assuming that's larger.)

They may well use the tale of Hunter Biden's Ukraine adventure to this end. I'm looking at news reports and trying to get a handle on this.

Hunter Biden, the former VP's younger son, is not to be confused with his brother Beau, the fellow who succumbed to cancer in 2015.

Hunter was a director of eCommerce policy issues in the Department of Commerce under President Clinton. He much later (in 2014) became a member of the board of something called Burisma Holdings, the largest non-government natural gas producer in the Ukraine. That's where our story starts to pick up.

Only FOUR DAYS after Burisma announced that Hunter Biden was a member of its board, VP Joe Biden travelled to the Ukraine and met with government officials, urging them to increase their production of ... wait for it ... natural gas. Of course there is a perfectly good policy reason for him to have urged this: more domestic production means more independence vis-a-vis Russia and its natgas pipeline. Dependence on that pipeline assists Putin in his ambition to restore the old Soviet hegemony in the region.

So ... here's a policy that is good for the Ukraine as an independent sovereign, but also very good for VP Biden's son. And the odd timing certainly makes it look like the latter point may have crossed the VP's mind. That's not good. But things get worse.

Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Viktor Shokin, eventually started investigating corruption in Burisma Holdings. On another trip to that country, in 2016, Daddy Biden (still acting as his administration's point man for Ukraine policy) threatened to have the US withhold $1 billion of loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired. The threat worked. Shokin was fired.

Again, let us add a caveat: THERE WERE (AT LEAST ARGUABLY) GOOD POLICY REASONS WHY A US OFFICIAL SHOULD HAVE URGED SHOKIN'S FIRING. He was widely suspected, in his own country and in much of the rest of the world, of being at least as corrupt as anyone he was investigating for the same. So again, a Jamesian might "will to believe" that Biden only wanted a cleaned-up Ukrainian government the better to serve as a bulwark against Putin -- that his son's business and legal interest in the matter didn't cross his mind. Still, not every one will engage in that act of will.

In recent weeks, intriguingly, the prosecutor who replaced Shokin has revived that office's investigation of Burisma. This earned the matter a big front-page article in The New York Times yesterday, and it will certainly give Biden's intra-party foes ammunition. 






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak