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.
Annie – every single time, bar none, that I have posted a link from a conservative journalist, one of the posters complains about the source and won’t read it. Obviously there’s nothing I can do about it. But it is difficult when someone asks for proof for a statement, and then won’t read the source because it isn’t Liberal. In the old days, journalists covered stories, no matter what their personal opinions are, but those days are gone. Liberal media just don’t publish some stories that hurt Democrats.
For instance, I saw a video of a WH press conference in which journalists from CNN and other mainstream sites hammered on Carney for lying about Benghazi on several issues. But the media remained silent on the exchange. If I hadn’t seen the actual video of the presser, I would not have known it happened.
Karen – it is important to some to denigrate your sources, that way they can wallow in their ignorance. There are a couple in particular who do this all the time. However, ask these same people for a link and suddenly they have gone blind.
* anything*
Yes indeed it is Karen, Elaine, myself, SWM and others have used non partisan links as well as liberal links also. None of us read JUST from liberal sources, so you aren’t telling us nothing we don’t know. Be careful of sounding condescending.
slohrss – that was funny!
Annie – you may have noticed that I have also posted links from CNN, ABC, and other sources, as well. It is unwise to limit oneself to media that solely reflects one’s own point of view.
Annie – I get what you’re saying. I, myself, have remarked when a pro-union piece was written by a union. It’s OK to point out bias or conflict of interest. But we should read articles and respond to the points that are raised.
I’ve read pretty much everything you’ve linked. If I disagree with their conclusions, I’ll try to explain why. If I find them biased, I try to explain the flaw in their reasoning. I don’t just say, “I won’t read that because a Liberal wrote it.” And I don’t disagree with absolutely everything a journalist writes whose political beliefs differ than mine.
Wow, you guys are tough. Chris Froome appears to have DNA of alien origin, boy is he going to have tough time with paperwork. He apologized for it though.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/04/news/froome-faces-scrutiny-extraterrestrial-dna-test-results_322157
Hopefully, all this will run its course sooner or later. As this world gets more overcrowded and mashed together, it may help for everyone to judge others solely on the content of THEIR character. Race and ethnicities will become to subdivided to categorize. Well, maybe.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/87359/national-geographic-concludes-what-americans-will-look-like-in-2050-and-it-s-beautiful
Trying not to nitpick Elizabeth Warren yet. Trying to be naively hopeful.
Precisely, so now you can stop hammering on Elaine.
Annie – Elaine often goes deep deep into the woods.
Paul, perhaps you could suggest to Karen that she too could look elsewhere for her sources. Goose/gander sort of thing.
Annie – I was going to suggest that we come to some consensus on sources we would all agree to, but then realized that would be impossible. I cannot make anyone read what I post and neither can you. It is all part and parcel of this blog.
Moving right along….
From the John Birch Society UP to a more reputable outlet – Breitbart.
Paul, I thought you didn’t trust Wiki. Now you’re linking to Wiki? Oky doky then.
Annie – I don’t trust Wikipedia. However, so far no one has overcome the information. I generally have avoided using Wikipediak, but like any addict, I slipped. 😉
Karen, two of your fellow conservatives here have been hammering on liberals who post left wing sources. Tell them what you just told us about forming one’s own opinion.
Some posters refuse to read anything unless it’s written by a Liberal.
It’s better to read everything and form your own opinions.
Annie – I do read most of the sources, I do complain that you all might find the same thing elsewhere.
Supak:
“I’m a big supporter of unions, but they have better things to spend money on than politics.
So do corporations, for that matter.” And actors, the wealthy, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Monsanto . . .
I want to remove the grease from the wheels of politics. Don’t know if it can be done, but I think it should be attempted. From ALL parties. Let’s make things more fair.
Thanks for the rescue, Darren!
Feynman – I looked for and found an accurate description of the Iranian revolution. Since I had family in the Pentagon, it coincided with my information.
If a conservative wrote about gravity, would you claim it to be false?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/04/18/Elizabeth-Warren-Made-False-Claim-of-Minority-Status-in-Law-School-Directories-Beginning-in-1986
Here is a whole wiki devoted to Elizabeth Warren.
http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/
Annie:
Elizabeth Warren identified herself as a Minority Law Professor at the University of Texas, University of Pennsylvania, AND Harvard.
I find it odd that she would have never noticed her directory listing for all 3 universities.
The facts are that she misrepresented herself as a minority. She was listed as a minority law professor for 3 different universities, at a time when there was a push to increase diversity.
What cannot be proven is whether she actually believed her claim. I honestly do not know. Even if she thought she had a smidgeon of Native American, it is not ethical for her to use that to gain minority status, and the privileges conferred through AA. AA, with all its flaws, had the good intention to increase opportunities for minorities. And she was not missing out on any opportunities because of the color of her skin.
“In 1993, Warren self-identified to the authors of a study published by the Harvard Women’s Law Journal as “a woman of color.”
In 1995, Senator Warren was offered and accepted a job as a professor at Harvard Law School.
One year later, a Harvard Law School administrator publicly described Warren as a “woman of color” in two separate publications, the Harvard Crimson (1996), and the Fordham Law Review (1997).”‘
Honestly, is there anyone on Earth who does not object to Elizabeth Warren claiming herself as a “person of color????”
If it was, as Annie says, simply a matter of her commenting on family lore after she was hired, and then not correcting a directory, that would be one thing. But 3 universities, and specifically using the phrase “person of color” to describe herself? It’s morally wrong on multiple levels.
How many times have posters on this site referred to “white privilege” and yet when a Nordic blonde woman claims to be a “person of color” she is defended.
http://youtu.be/eCxi5VOYKOY
Karen
You’re right. Your link is to The New American. It confirms what I suspected .
The New American is a John Birch Society publication. John Birch, folks.
That’s what Karen believes. The John Birch Society.
What, specifically, is your problem with the John Birch Society?