There is a obvious concern this week over the selection of the newest member of the board of directors for Burisma Holdings, Ukraine’s largest private gas producer: Vice President Joe Biden’s youngest son, Hunter Biden. Despite a strong resume, it seems rather coincidental that Ukraine is receiving aid from the United States and recently had a visit from Vice President Joe Biden only to decide that his youngest son was the very best person to sit on its board.
Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Burisma’s legal unit and will “provide support” among international organizations. The White House spokesman would only say that “Hunter Biden and other members of the family are obviously private citizens and where they work is not an endorsement by the president or vice president.”
Reporters were referred to Biden’s law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, which declined to coment.
Alan Apter, the chairman of the company’s board of directors, said it views the selection as part of its effort to “introduc[e] best corporate practices, and we’re delighted that Mr. Biden is joining us to help us achieve these goals.” Those “best corporate practices” are hardly the best ethical practices if the company is hiring the children of high ranking officials to curry favor. This is particularly a concern in Ukraine which, as we discussed earlier, leads Europe as one of its most corrupt nations where the family members of powerful politicians are routinely showered with gifts and positions.
Like many spouses and children of our politicians, Hunter Biden made a fortune as a lobbyist in Washington. That common path for children continues to raise troubling questions of influence peddling and corruption for our leaders as discussed in this earlier column. The company recently added Devon Archer, a wealthy investor and Democratic campaign bundler. Archer previously declared how his business deals at Rosemont Seneca rely on a “relationship network creat[ing] opportunities for our portfolio companies which then compound to greater outcomes for all parties.” That “relationship network” is precisely what many have objected to in the hiring of family members tied to our leaders — allowing companies to give millions legally to families of Democratic and Republican leaders.
In addition to his position as counsel with the firm, Biden is a co-founder and a managing partner of investment advisory company Rosemont Seneca Partners and serves as director of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a network of 400 businesses. He is also the chairman of the advisory board for the National Democratic Institute, a non-profit that works to support democratic institutions and elections around the world. Even with this experience, I am rather skeptical. First, his selection as counsel to Boies, Schiller, Flexner, LLP, seems designed to create a tie to his father and the Administration. He was was chief executive officer, and later chairman, of hedge fund PARADIGM Global Advisors – an association that he co-founded with convicted financier Allen Stanford. He was later appointed by Bill Clinton to serve in the United States Department of Commerce under Secretaries Norman Mineta and William M. Daley. He was then nominated by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of Amtrak. It is a resume that many would envy but also one that reflects the type of opportunities that are often afforded children of our ruling elite.
Of course, the selection of a Bush for such a position in the prior administration would have had Democrats and liberals in an uproar but they are again largely silent in the face of another deal benefitting one of our ruling elite. Obviously, Hunter Biden is an adult and does not need the approval of his father to accept a position, though his father has had an obvious impact on his past opportunities. It is simply worth noting that while we rightfully criticize the Chinese for the “Red Nobility,” we have a long list of children and spouses receiving millions in cushy deals and positions in this country. However, in the blue state/red state politics fosters by both parties, such issues are quickly brushed aside by those arguing again that the other side is worse or that such ethical questions are merely an effort to smear their side.
Supak – I sometimes remember to cite things and sometimes I don’t. I am long past the time I gave my thesis to my committee for approval. I do not remember your name on the committee.
Feynman – you misunderstand me completely. And you obviously did not read the link.
You seem angry. Just simmer down and read the link. If my union comment could be found in cyberspace, it would likely make sense to you.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/05/31/elizabeth_warren_acknowledges_telling_harvard_penn_of_native_american_status/
Warren did not claim minority status until AFTER she was hired.
Karen
Sorry. I care nothing for your family’s opinion. What I now know of father’s opinion of how VN should have been fought (which would have resulted in the death of millions more for some crazy god-forsaken idea about falling dominoes) and your political opinions makes it easy to reject your positions and your reliance on propaganda and some kind of crazy history.
I don’t think I have ever come across anyone who is much of an ideologue as you. Your view of history is not subject to reality. For lord’s sake. Most here saw the Iranian Revolution unfold before us. Where were you – in some right wing academy where black is white? Your view is as seen through a teeny-tiny little prism which fits your right-wing view of the world. Your view is crazy. Your view is blind.
And yes. Carter was President and he pressed the Shah about human rights and he wouldn’t sell him some kind of weapons.
But to take that and say he overthrew the Shah is insane.
Spare me your thoughts on the unions. I don’t give a damn what you think.
A failure to act is still an act. If you do not support your allies and you allow their government to fall you are responsible for the fall just as much as if you were there throwing the bombs.
Karen, I saw your comment.
“No matter where the money comes from, it can buy a politician just the same.”
I agree. Unions or not. I’m a big supporter of unions, but they have better things to spend money on than politics.
So do corporations, for that matter.
Schulte:
“Supak – how many foreigners did Washington have the military kill while he was President?”
What does that have to do with anything? Like the fact that you quoted from Wikipedia verbatim without citing it?
Supak – you said that every President except Carter used the military to kill a foreigner. I am asking which foreigner George Washington, as President had killed.
Is it possible to retrieve my Union comment?
Feynman:
My link above gives an overview of the fall of the Shah.
slohrss29 – I completely agree. No one should be free of criticism. And I believe the press should maintain a healthy skepticism of government, always ready and willing to report any wrongdoing. It’s the only way to keep them in check. And they are failing in that mandate.
As for Elizabeth Warren, my biggest problem with her is that she intentionally took advantage of programs intended to help Native Americans get their foot in the door. Whether or not she actually believed she was a fraction Native American, she was not the obvious intended beneficiary of such AA benefits. That reflects badly on her character. Everyone can make mistakes, sometimes really big ones, but I was disappointed by her reaction when she was caught. I heard explanations and defenses, rather than she was utterly and completely wrong, and ashamed of taking advantage of the system. I would have respected that.
Feynman:
Are you actually unaware of Carter’s and the US’s involvement? Seriously? Because of my family, I am actually quite aware of our involvement.
My comment was lost. Can someone please find it?
Feynman:
Sure, if you want to, but that sounds like what Democrats are trying to do to Republicans. You know, targeting conservative donors with the IRS.
Tell me if you think that it is fair that in order to get a job, you are required to belong to a union. That union deducts mandatory political contributions from your paycheck. They give those donations to Democrats, regardless of the political affiliation of the donors, which is allowed because it technically came from many people and not “the union.”
Does this meet your definition of fairness? Because I find it very troubling, and odd that more do not do so.
Why does the Union fight efforts to make donations from their members voluntary? Because when that is the case, political donations go way down.
So a large, powerful organization is forcing members to join it in order to work, and forcing them to donate to causes it picks, against their wishes.
If you do not oppose this, why not? Can you explain your position on why this behavior is acceptable? Because I cannot think of a reason.
Karen, I retrieved your comment from the spam filter.
Folks, Karen’s comment can be read above at 7:23
Jimmy Carter overthrew the Shah? Jimmy Carter overthrew the Shah? Good grief!
Could she be confusing the CIA coup that ousted Mossadeqh? Has the Iranian Revolution been written out of our history books?
Did Carter overthrow the Shah and fly the Ayatollah into Tehran? Is the moon made out of green cheese?
I really like Elizabeth Warren, even though she may be part Plutonian or whatever, but at least she is for a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. She still seems to analyze things in the government “maya” (pardon the Hindu term) all those people are stuck in. Nevertheless, I feel that she does not exude self-confidence as far a foreign policy goes, and we really need a leader with strong convictions who has a strong history background. And I don’t mean that Bolton guy either. Where do these people come from??
Is Elizabeth Warren part Cherokee or Mohawk depending on which week it is?
These labels leave much to be desired. What is a progressive? Is Obama a progressive? If he is, does this term require him to be free of criticism? He has certainly littered his closet with enough skeletons in his short federal government career. I prefer to not be ideologically limited by short-sighted labels. Just tell it like it is.
Although Republicans are working hard in eliminating unions, let’s make it even easier for Karen….let’s just ban any Democrats from making campaign donations.
And let’s just call that Campaign Reform.
Media Matters is working hard at eliminating its union.
Paul – and attorneys were standing by when they went for Bin Ladin.
Supak – it is an error to become antagonistic towards a multi-party political system. “Wise statesmen” will not always be in power. So creating a massive political machine giving a single party too much power, unable to be voted out, and challenging the separation of powers is unwise. It is an experiment that has been tried out many times, always with the same result. What is it that they say about dictators, that they often ascend to power by the will of the people?
As for Carter, he seemed to be a good person, with good intentions, but an ineffective president. For example, his overthrow of the Shaw had far reaching consequences, including allowing extremism to again take over Iran.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4690-iran-and-the-shah-what-really-happened
The Shaw allowed women’s rights, increased literacy, donated Crown land for farmers, and opposed the opium trade. But his relationship with the US became complicated when he aided Egypt against Israel, and took control of Iran’s oil fields. OPEC’s embargo in 1973 was not far from memory.
A lazy media allowed the narrative that the Shaw was a despot, and Carter dutifully ousted him. And Iran reverted back to an extremist, Sharia Law hotbed.
A great many people were killed during the Iranian revolution that Carter essentially caused, as it could never have been successful without his intervention. And a great many more have been killed since under the extremist regime. I’ve known Persians who fled Iran after soldiers came in the night and murdered their families.
Schulte:
“My name is George Soros and I am donating to all the Progressive causes I want.”
And I don’t care. I want money out of politics. Period.
Paul Schulte:
“Supak – I thought you were against this comparison thing.”
What gave you that idea? I’m the one talking about matters of degree. A comparison is necessary to do that.
“Supak”
That’s my name, don’t wear it out.
“I really cannot follow your train of thought anymore you are all over the place. ”
I’m sorry you’re having trouble keeping up. Perhaps you should go back and give me a specific example?
“And you do not understand the definition of chickenhawk”
And you just copied and pasted from Wikipedia without citing it.
“The term indicates that the person in question is hypocritical for personally dodging a draft or otherwise shirking their duty to their country during a time of armed conflict while advocating that others do so.”
Wrong. Based on your own copied and pasted definition from Wikipedia, it is “a person who strongly supports war or other military action (i.e., a war hawk), yet who actively avoided military service when of age”
That would mean they dodged, and then they advocated much later. It doesn’t mean that they advocated while dodging.