The Biden "bribery scandal"
This accusation, by House and Senate GOP has been made against Joe Biden:
then-Vice President Biden allegedly engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national
The basis of the allegation is a FD-1023 form, documenting information provided to the FBI by a highly reliable confidential source. Congressional GOP (and Conservative News sites like Fox) have stressed this latter point that the source is highly reliable. But they tend to gloss over the fact that this source is not providing first hand information to the FBI. Rather, hes conveying what someone told him.
So the case consists of an accusation by an unknown source, of unknown reliability. Fox News has reported:
Sources said the Burisma executive appears to be at a "very, very high level" of the company. One source familiar suggested the confidential source could be referring to the head of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, but said the name of the Burisma executive is redacted in the document.
Who is Mykola Zlochevsky? He was the co-founder of Burisma, and he was investigated for money-laundering and tax evasion in 2012. In April 2014, he hired Hunter Biden. That same month, the Serious Fraud Office of the United Kingdom froze approximately $23 million belonging to companies controlled by Zlochevsky. The point is: hes a criminal, and he is the sole source of the allegation.
Background on the alleged bribe: it was allegedly made to get Ukraines Prosecutor General, Viktor Shokin, removed because Shokin was ostensibly investigating Burisma Holdings. However, theres strong evidence that he wasnt actually investigating them, and this is why the EU and Ukranian anti-corruption groups wanted Shokin removed Biden was assisting by forcing the move. The move was effective - Shokins replacement actually charged Burisma with corruption. (See: this, this, and this).
More recently, GOP members of Congress have indicated that are tape recordings of Biden coercing the bribe. How do we know there are such recordings? Because according the the same FD-1023, that same Burisma executive said so. IOW, the evidence that Joe Biden took a bribe consists entirely of claims made by one guy, a guy who is very possibly criminal and very possibly has a vendetta against Biden for his role in getting Burisma investigated.
Im fine with investigating further, even if it's politically motivated. Congressional Investigations don't require probable cause, and I'm fine with that - but I'm not so fine with the distortions that are made in public statements. But we should reflect on the thinness of the evidence against Biden. Contrast this with the apparent evidence against Trump as described in his indictment.
Many GOP argue that the inaction against Biden vs the actions against Trump demonstrate a two-tier justice system: Trump gets charged with crimes, while Bidens crimes are ignored. This reflects a double standard on THEIR part: a 2nd hand allegation by a possible criminal vs an apparent wealth of evidence against Trump are hardly comparable.
then-Vice President Biden allegedly engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national
The basis of the allegation is a FD-1023 form, documenting information provided to the FBI by a highly reliable confidential source. Congressional GOP (and Conservative News sites like Fox) have stressed this latter point that the source is highly reliable. But they tend to gloss over the fact that this source is not providing first hand information to the FBI. Rather, hes conveying what someone told him.
So the case consists of an accusation by an unknown source, of unknown reliability. Fox News has reported:
Sources said the Burisma executive appears to be at a "very, very high level" of the company. One source familiar suggested the confidential source could be referring to the head of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, but said the name of the Burisma executive is redacted in the document.
Who is Mykola Zlochevsky? He was the co-founder of Burisma, and he was investigated for money-laundering and tax evasion in 2012. In April 2014, he hired Hunter Biden. That same month, the Serious Fraud Office of the United Kingdom froze approximately $23 million belonging to companies controlled by Zlochevsky. The point is: hes a criminal, and he is the sole source of the allegation.
Background on the alleged bribe: it was allegedly made to get Ukraines Prosecutor General, Viktor Shokin, removed because Shokin was ostensibly investigating Burisma Holdings. However, theres strong evidence that he wasnt actually investigating them, and this is why the EU and Ukranian anti-corruption groups wanted Shokin removed Biden was assisting by forcing the move. The move was effective - Shokins replacement actually charged Burisma with corruption. (See: this, this, and this).
More recently, GOP members of Congress have indicated that are tape recordings of Biden coercing the bribe. How do we know there are such recordings? Because according the the same FD-1023, that same Burisma executive said so. IOW, the evidence that Joe Biden took a bribe consists entirely of claims made by one guy, a guy who is very possibly criminal and very possibly has a vendetta against Biden for his role in getting Burisma investigated.
Im fine with investigating further, even if it's politically motivated. Congressional Investigations don't require probable cause, and I'm fine with that - but I'm not so fine with the distortions that are made in public statements. But we should reflect on the thinness of the evidence against Biden. Contrast this with the apparent evidence against Trump as described in his indictment.
Many GOP argue that the inaction against Biden vs the actions against Trump demonstrate a two-tier justice system: Trump gets charged with crimes, while Bidens crimes are ignored. This reflects a double standard on THEIR part: a 2nd hand allegation by a possible criminal vs an apparent wealth of evidence against Trump are hardly comparable.
Comments (11)
So what's the story on this? How much do we actually know?
The two explanations that spring to mind are both bad: (1) he was hired in an attempt to co-op VP Joe Biden ("Why come after us? We can be a very good friend to you..."); (2) he was hired as a sort of human shield ("You can come after us, but then your son is in the crosshairs too...").
No doubt Hunter was well-paid, but is there any evidence that either of these plausible intentions were realized?
Trouble is, even if VP Biden didn't back off, that's not necessarily evidence that he didn't personally make a deal with Burisma, or make one through his son: he might have made a deal and then broken it. Criminals often count on being able to get away with that sort of thing. (Which, according to Goodfellas, is why the mob existed, cops for people who couldn't go to the cops.)
If VP Biden were corrupt, it's hard to believe he'd want to advertise it by getting his son a job with the crook whose money he was taking. But that's not much of a defense, and sometimes people are dumb.
Here's one more unsupported theory: Zlochevsky was attempting to put a respectable sheen on his company, but misunderstood how status works in the US. "How can we be bad guys? We have a Biden on our board. His father is an important man, so we are respectable." Hunter Biden, as the child of a celebrity (albeit a political one), is not inherently respectable and untouchable; he's right out of central casting as a someone headed for big-time scandal. Americans, for all kinds of reasons, love to put the children of the famous through the ringer.
To me, it looks like Hunter and his Yale buddies Archer and (though less in this case) Heinz were just engaging in the typical eating-all-the-cookies behavior of elites. They don't have to be purposefully corrupt because opportunities to take more and more just keep coming their way. (Cf. Bush, George W.) He's far from the only guy in America with a history of addiction and infidelity, who might still be decent at whatever job he holds at the moment -- but he also happens to be 90th percentile.
A couple links:
Washington Post
Reuters
I sometimes mention that during the Obama Presidency, the Republicans raised hell because Barrack Obama had the audacity to appear at the presidential podium wearing a tan suit. Compare that, with what is on the public record in respect of Donald Trump's innummerable scandals and alleged crimes, including espionage, insurrection, interference with public officials, and intimidation of witnesses. Gives an idea of the scale of the hypocrisy which pervades the current Republican Party.
100% agree. It seems to me this originates in the fact that Trump has been investigated so much, and GOP is loath to think any investigation of him can possibly have merit. Whereas others notice how many of the investigations into Trump and his associates have borne fruit and exposed actual crimes.
It's typical of this lot. All of the promised 'bombshell revelations' about the 'weaponisation of the FBI' have likewise fallen completely flat, relying as they were on disenchanted ex-employees and so-called informants that the panel was unable to actually locate.
As always with Trumpworld fiascos, malevolence throttled by incompetence.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/20/us/hunter-biden-plea-deal/heres-the-latest-on-hunter-bidens-case?smid=url-share
https://abcnews.go.com/US/biden-critic-gal-luft-charged-failing-register-foreign/story?id=101093820
GOP had evidence disproving Biden bribery claims in 2019, top Democrat says