“No One Has Suggested My Son Did Anything Wrong”: Joe Biden Doubles Down On Denial

We have previously discussed the denials of former Vice President Joe Biden that his son did anything wrong in Ukraine. As I have written, not only did Hunter Biden clearly enter into a corrupt (but arguably lawful) contract but Joe Biden did not do enough to confirm that his son was not engaging in influence peddling. Nevertheless, this week, Joe Biden continued this indefensible position and declared bizarrely that “no one has suggested my son did anything wrong.”

According to the Washington Post, Joe Biden declared on the campaign trail that “There’s nobody that’s indicated there’s a single solitary thing that he did that was inappropriate, wrong … or anything other than the appearance. It looked bad that he was there.” He then curiously added “He acknowledges that he in fact made a mistake going on the board.” So, in other words, he did nothing wrong but he apologized for it.

Joe Biden continues to maintain that “no one” has accused his son of wrongdoing when there is a chorus of such allegations. He seems to be drawing a distinction between what is criminal and what is not — as if the criminal code is the only measure of wrongdoing or unethical conduct.

Hunter Biden not only clearly engaged in influence peddling but he is clearly a relevant witness.

Ukraine was a virtual gold rush for Washington’s elite and Hunter Biden was one of the first in line to cash in. Biden’s quest for a Ukrainian windfall took him to one of Ukraine’s most controversial and corrupt associates, Mykola Zlochevsky, who leveraged his post as minister of ecology and natural resources to build a fortune. Before fleeing Ukraine, Zlochevsky paid Hunter Biden and several other Americans to be directors of his energy company, Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden had no experience in the field — but he did have a notable connection to the vice president, who publicly has bragged about making clear to the Ukrainians that he alone controlled U.S. aid to the country. A stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry also was asked to serve as a director but reportedly declined and warned Hunter Biden not to do it; Biden didn’t listen. He later told The New Yorker that “the decisions that I made were the right decisions for my family and for me.” His decisions certainly were profitable, but they were not “right” as an ethical matter for himself or his father.

The use of spouses or children in influence peddling schemes is a tried and true technique in Washington. You find some kid of a powerful politician and give them a windfall salary or contract. There is no direct bribe or criminal violation, just influence with the politician. Joe Biden seems to believe that, so long as it does not violation the criminal code, it makes it “right” or curiously somehow “not wrong.”

107 thoughts on ““No One Has Suggested My Son Did Anything Wrong”: Joe Biden Doubles Down On Denial”

  1. I’m still trying to figure out why, if it was not wrong, he resigned when his dad declared for President? If it’s not wrong, why not keep doing it? Biden the elder is the guy who should be looked at. Hunter is just being Hunter, as he probably has behaved his whole life. It’s his dad who should be in the witness chair, because what he did or did not do is clearly the issue over which Trump is in trouble. Is that not clear to anyone? And, if Nadler, Schiff, et al are so sure Biden is in the clear, why are they willing to forgo ANY witnesses in order to keep the Bidens from having to testify? They accuse Trump of guilt for not wanting people to testify, but refuse to see how it applies to them, too.

    1. They simply won’t agree to a “witness trade”, of course they aren’t going to forgo calling any witnesses. Both sides can call anyone they choose if it gets to that point.

    2. I’m still trying to figure out why, if it was not wrong, he resigned when his dad declared for President?
      He resigned when his 5 year term was over. Hunter did nothing out of the ordinary by taking a job with a company located in Cyprus that does business mostly in the Ukraine energy market.
      From what I have seen Hunter never set foot in Ukraine but he did attend all the company board meetings. Given that Hunter has never been inside Ukraine jurisdiction it seems unlikely Ukraine would have much to investigate about him.

      What is clearly “wrong” here is, at a bare minimum, Joe Biden lacks good judgement. He bragged about something that probably did not happen because he thought it would make Joe Biden look good. The fact that he could not see (or did not care) how bad this would look indicates a lack of moral character. Anybody who can’t see how corrupt this looks does not deserve to be President.

      If Biden had recused himself from US/Ukraine foreign policy, there would have been no blow-back from his son taking a job from a company that does business in Ukraine.

  2. Of course Joe Biden finds nothing wrong with this. He is a crook himself, hence he has no problem with corruption. But there are enough democrats who will love him so he gets away with what he does. Hell, let’s make him a president so he can achieve a greater level of corruption. In fact, he’s one of the best politicians money can buy, because enough people will sell their integrity for Uncle Joe’s table scraps.

  3. Trump’s Concern For Corruption Was Disingenuous. Tried To Loosen Bribery Law

    Trump actually approves of corruption. A Very Stable Genius, a new book by Washington Post reporters Philip Rucker and Carol Leonig, reports that in 2017, Trump sought to eliminate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bans U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials. “It’s just so unfair that American companies aren’t allowed to pay bribes to get business overseas,” Trump says, according to the book. “We’re going to change that.”

    Asked about this report Friday, White House economic adviser Lawrence Kudlow told reporters “we’re looking at it.” Kudlow, of course, has written that “Wealthy folks have no need to steal or engage in corruption,” so he surely doesn’t see any need to prohibit the rich from engaging in the kinds of untoward practices he is sure they would never need to do.

    This was a long-held position by Trump. In 2012, he called the law a “horrible law” that “puts us at a huge disadvantage.” This is not merely a matter of convenience for Trump. His business career has involved working with gangsters and paying off politicians. He believes in his soul that this is how business gets done. Many people are willing to engage in corruption, but Trump’s participation is a matter of conviction. He is not merely corrupt but a corruptionist.

    Edited from: “Trump Tried To Legalize Bribery. Maybe He Wasnt Worried About Ukrainian Corruption”

    New York Magazine, 1/17/20

    1. So? Foreign companies bribe our officials. At the time President Trump was a private businessman. President Clinton traded missile technology for campaign contributions. Mcconnell’s entire inlaw family is at the mercy of China. Has President Trump done anything towards changing the foreign corrupt powers act? No.
      Plus, most of our supposed allies use their state intelligence agencies to steal corporate technology. We are at a disadvantage. Maybe stooping to their level is not the right thing to do but if we did it. We may have leverage to get them to stop.

      1. Captain, whatever! Trump has no consistent history of fighting corruption. Hunter Biden seems to be the one instance where Trump seemed to care.

    2. His business career has involved working with gangsters and paying off politicians. He believes in his soul that this is how business gets done.
      Yeah but Trump is smart enough to keep such activity hidden.
      Biden apparently is not so smart.

  4. Perhaps old Joe has gotten by with corruption for so long he is delusional and thinks that obviously illegal behavior is perfectly fine for his “class”. And, it’s not just Hunter, but the entire Biden clan from what has been published. These people should be investigated, indicted, tried and jailed for any criminal behavior and / or corruption that is found. Government employees, elected officials and the people who benefit from any illegal or corrupt behavior should not be exempt from the harshest penalties allowed for violating the public trust. As a matter of fact, they should be held to a higher standard. Defrauding or stealing from taxpayers should carry a minimum life sentence. The American people have put up with this crap for way too long and it has become the norm for politicians to get away with anything.

  5. Charged with failure to provide child support
    Impregnating out of wedlock while married
    Using introductions and government funded air craft travel provided by his father
    just to mention three off the top of my head,

  6. The fact that Joe Biden and the Democrats are denying Hunter did any wrong is proof that he did


    I kinda like this reverse morality crap that the Dems fling at their enemies

    Bill Clinton: “I did not have sex with that woman!”

    Americans: “no, you raped multiple women and Hillary enjoy trashing them for not swallowing”

  7. Everyone has suggested Hunter has done everything wrong. From being a drug addict with frequent relapses, an unfaithful husband, son, brother, uncle, adult, from getting women pregnant on the sly and not owning up to his fatherly responsibilities, from being a white privileged pig and his father, Joe, defending him….

    the Hunter-Joe Biden is an epic failure on behalf of the unhinged, bat sh!t crazy career politician Dems that they only have themselves to blame

    Of course Americans see the double standard which is why Sanders is better suited to win against Trump as opposed to the dead weight of Joe Biden

    Joe, you have disgraced your first wife in raising her children, and you are a disgrace of a father, grandfather, uncle, mentor, friend and American

    On a side note, it’s a lovely Friday and I wish all of you a great weekend!

  8. Schiff made Hunter Biden relevant when he implied that Trump’s hidden message to Zelensky was to “make up dirt” that could be used against him. In effect, that “opened the door” to the necessity for Biden’s testimony. Schiff filled in the details of the abuse of power, in public, by saying that Trump’s “implication” that Zelensky needs t fabricate evidence was part of the quid pro quo. This was never specified in the record before. This gives Trump the real defense that the investigation he wanted was only about finding out the truth, nothing else. Now Trump only has to show that the suspicion of Biden’s corruption was already in the media playbook. Journalists and politicians were talking about it all the time. So why shouldn’t the President want to protect American taxpayers by learning the truth about Ukrainian corruption?

  9. The real issue is not that Hunter Biden did anything wrong, it’s that JOE BIDEN interfered in the actions of a foreign government in order to protect his son. By the way, Donald Trump didn’t have to request that Ukraine investigate Burisma, THEY WERE ALREADY DOING IT! Naturally, an investigation of a company includes members of its board. There definitely needs to be an investigation of what took place with Ukraine during the Obama administration. There’s too much smoke filling the air.

    1. They actually weren’t investigating Burisma at the time Hunter joined the board. I’m not defending him joining, but Joe Biden was acting in line with US foreign policy when he asked for the corrupt Ukranian Prosecutor to be removed. Arguably, the removal of the Prosecutor would have put more scrutiny on Hunter and Burisma which certainly doesn’t protect his son.

      1. James Young says:
        January 24, 2020 at 10:36 AM

        They actually weren’t investigating Burisma at the time Hunter joined the board. I’m not defending him joining, but Joe Biden was acting in line with US foreign policy when he asked for the corrupt Ukranian Prosecutor to be removed. Arguably, the removal of the Prosecutor would have put more scrutiny on Hunter and Burisma which certainly doesn’t protect his son.
        Fake news and bad time line sir. Simply stated Biden joined the board in 2014. UK froze funds in 2014. In Jan 2015 the freeze was lifted because Ukraine’s PG had not responded. Shokin to the job in Feb 2015. Yes Burisma was being investigated, yes money laundering was found, yes Biden was on the board, no Shokin was not PG at the time. I’ll provide the links and you can see for yourself.
        If you read the articles and build the time frame you will see the opinion piece in the times simply was not true. Unless you will except a times opinion piece over the Ukrainian News Agency.

        1. Thanks for sending a Wiki page and the Ukranian News Agency articles that are purely quoting Fox News. However, I do apologize in that I was wrong saying they weren’t being investigated when Hunter joined…the investigation was dormant when Joe Biden pushed to remove Shokin because Shokin failed to revive it. My point in replying to the original comment is that Joe Biden was not working to protect his son when he was trying to oust Shokin who was not investigating Burisma.

    2. His “interference” was to remove a corrupt prosecutor that was in line with U.S. Foreign Policy. It has also been confirmed that Burisma was not under investigation at the time, which was actually part of the reason the removal of this prosecutor was wanted. Arguably, the actions of Joe Biden would have actually put more scrutiny on Burisma and thus his son Hunter – not protecting him. I’m not defending Hunter joining the board, but Joe Biden is not the issue.

      1. Hunter Biden is the issue. That you are saying he is not makes it so.

        Im not saying you are lying however you thinking you are being truth is proof you are lying

  10. Biden has sent out a press memo completely clearing his son. Hunter is avoiding the courts. Is he in hiding? If he is innocent, surely the Democrats would love to have him testify.

  11. Count on JT to focus on the most important issues. This Hunter guy must be stopped! Fortunately our president doesn’t have other family members attached to him involved in unknown deals around the world!

    Kudos on slow news day – especially in the area of constitutional law – to write for the 3rd time in 5 days about Hunter Biden.

    1. Trust you to ignore the issue and focus on the distraction.

      Was”Ethics” a difficult subject for you?

  12. The issue is not that Hunter took the job – he is a man of proven low morals.

    The issue is not that Joe Biden defends Hunter – he is a politician.

    The issue is that the Dems voters pretend that Hunter’s corruption is not an issue.

    The Dems are so desperate to have an opponent to Trump that they will excuse anything.

    1. Yes. I am astounded that the Dems keep demanding witnesses, but have stated (Nadler and Schumer) that they will forgo ANY and ALL witnesses if it means the Biden’s won’t have to appear. What do you think that means? High-minded and clear principles? I don’t think so…it stinks.

      1. The charges are not impeachable offenses and they know it. The defense will declare the charges are not impeachable offenses and request dismissal. The case will be dismissed and Nadler and Schumer will go away crying cover up.

        Abuse of power is not specific enough a charge. The President cannot be impeached on such a vague charge unless it is a total partisan shame. When he conducts the nations business there should be no cameras or recorders. It is no more an abuse of power for him to keep his meeting private than it was for Schiff to have secret meeting in the bunker. By Schiff definition of abuse of power he would be guilty.

        Obstructing Congress is equally undefinable. The three branches are equal. How can one equal but separate branch be obstructed when they make a request and the answer is no? President Trump has requested funds to build a wall. When congress refused to fund the wall it was obstruction of the executive branch. Is this not correct?

        If Schiff ask for the football and code would he get it?
        He has no more right to the records of White House staff meetings.

        The trap is to allow a witness to be called. The defense must request the dismissal at the get go. Allow one witness and the trial has begun.

        We had a meeting to discuss a retirement contract and the other side ask to give up labor day holiday.

        The response was “Your crazy you would stand about as good a chance of getting Christmas but that’s not what we are here for. We’re here to discuss retirement”

        “Let’s talk about the holiday.”.

        “We’re here to discuss retirement, that would be a matter for another time.”.

        The next meeting starts with “Now about labor day holiday.”

        “I told you that is a matter for another day.”.

        “This is another day.”.

        The statement “that would be a matter for another day” opened the door.

        No sir no witness. Dismissal.

        Any other outcome makes Nadler a lot smarter than I think he is and the president’s lawyers a lot dumber than I think they are.

        We’ll see tomorrow.

      2. Schiff said both sides could call witnesses as they see fit though he does not see Hunter’s relevance. Why are you afraid of witnesses? You won’t believe the truth.

        1. Gee, Schiff didn’t feel that “both sides could call witnesses as they see fit” in the House inpeachment hearings.
          He’d be on stronger footing if, instead of belatedly saying this in the Senate trial, he’d felt the same way when he was calling the shots
          in the Impeachment hearings.

          1. The House effort is similar to a grand jury and the defendant is seldom allowed to put on a defense. Unless of course, you murder an unarmed youth in Ferguson.

            1. A big difference is that, unlike grand jury proceedings, the impeachment hearing was public.
              And we saw Schiff and Co. publically playing by their rules when it came to deciding who could testify, and their unwillingness to press for witnesses they said they needed.
              Now they arrive at the trial stage and insist that the Senate conducting the trial get testimony from witnesses they didn’t produce.
              That’s not likely to get a sympathetic, cooperative response from the Senate.
              We’ll find out soon if the few GOP potential allies they have in the Senate side with them on the question of witnesses.
              Both Nadler and Schiff managed to anger those Senators in remarks they made in the past few days, so that may damage their chances.

              1. Things can always be done better but plenty of evidence to convict. Additional witnesses would be great but can’t afford to wait for court process, it took 6 months to for Bolton’s assistant. On that tome schedule we’d be adjudicating this 2 years from now.

                1. The possible amount of time needed to get a court ruling on enforcing subpeonas has been discussed here and elsewhere.
                  It was clear by early October ( if not sooner) that the White House had instructed potential key witnesses not to testify.
                  There was this ” finish by Christmas” self- imposed artificial timeline, followed by a month delay in delivering the articles to the Senate.
                  So there was a minimum of 4 months that the House Democrats had to enforce subpeonas ( in some cases they didn’t even bother issuing subpeonas).
                  It’s the court system, SCOTUS if it goes that far, that can’t afford to drag out resolution of issues concerning something as important as Impeachment of a president.
                  It took 3 months to get the ruling that forced Nixon to turn over the tapes when the White House challenged the subpeona. Turley’s Congressional testimony and columns here have pointed out that a sloppy, incompleted rush job is no way for the House to handle an impeachment.
                  The House excuse that there wasn’t time doesn’t hold up.

Leave a Reply