Yesterday the House Oversight Committee released bank records showing that Hunter Biden received payments totaled more than $20 million dollars from Russian, Ukrainian, and Kazakh oligarchs while Joe Biden was Vice-President. The redacted bank records indicated that Hunter and his business associates got lucrative payments from Burisma Holdings, Russian billionaire Yelena Baturina, and Kazakhstani businessman Kenes Rakishev, among others. Yet Hunter Biden has virtually no skills or special qualities that would justify any payments at all, much less millions, except for one: he’s the son of Joe Biden.
Obviously these payments were meant to, at very least, endear these parties to the then Vice-President in hopes that the unearned bounty would create a bias in their favor. At worst, they were bribes one-step-removed.
In my view, it cannot be argued that the payments did not create an appearance of impropriety for Joe Biden, and colorable conflicts of interest as well.
The problem is this: what is a powerful elected official supposed to do about a son, daughter or other relative who engages in speculative influence peddling for profit? Is such an official obligated to do anything to curtail it? I’m going to leave aside the question of whether Biden’s apparent willingness to meet and engage in phone calls with Hunter’s benefactors makes him an accessory to fraud and a participant in his son’s schemes; let’s also ignore the issue of whether “the Big Guy” was ever funneled funds himself.
Showering undeserved benefits on powerful people’s children, adult or not, is an old, old device. The idea is to create indebtedness and gratitude that may pay off in the future: it’s a bit like “The Godfather” and the Don’s creation of a future obligation by bestowing a “favor.” Chelsea Clinton got a completely undeserved $600,000 contract from NBC in 2014. Assuming it wasn’t a sub rosa requested quid pro quo from the Clintons (and with the Clintons, you can’t assume that anything isn’t crooked), the network was obviously looking for future bounties from Bill and Hillary, whom at that time everyone assumed would be the next POTUS. Chelsea had no broadcast experience and has the screen presence of driftwood: but were the Clintons supposed to stop her from getting a break?
And Chelsea wasn’t the charity case that Hunter was and is. John Adams had a Hunterish son, Charles, who ended up a hopeless, penniless, broken drunk who died young because the influence-peddling game hadn’t been perfected yet. Should Joe Biden be expected to take affirmative steps that might ensure that his black sheep son ends up like poor Charles Adams?
Yup. Presidents, like all public officials and government employees, are ethically obligated to avoid the appearance of impropriety, even when it is thrust upon them by others. The best way to do that in cases like Hunter’s clients is for public officials to formally and publicly announce that any nation, individual or organization that appears to be enriching a family member for the purpose of attracting a favorable bias will, in fact, receive the opposite. The public figure will remove himself or herself from all matters involving such benefactors or, if that is impossible, treat the cynical enrichment of the family members as a disqualification from any positive action or decision.
Ethics Alarms 
And we’re at the stage of the left wing propaganda machine saying “of course there were millions upon millions of dollars showered upon the Biden family with Joe’s knowledge, but we can’t be sure of it ended up personally and directly benefiting him” level of lie.
That is what a defense attorney would and must argue if there was a reasonable chance it would work.
Come on Michael West! Even if Biden did get money, Hunter was going to inherit it anyway.
There’s no real benefit to Joe.
-Jut
Soon the headlines will only read “republicans pounce”, “GOP seeks to politicize Hunter Biden personal business”, “look! Trump!”
Careful – apparently asking someone to look into any of this will get you impeached. At least once.
How about telling the kid or other relative, “Cut it the fuck out!”
But the question of “what to do about the Billy Carters of the world” is in the current Biden scandal preposterous and tantamount to misdirection. Jonathan Turley has a great piece out today https://jonathanturley.org/ making the great point that a person of Joe Biden’s age has little interest in money other than enriching his heirs.
Just last night I learned Moscow Bernie’s wife’s and stepson’s non profit got $200K from his perpetually overfunded campaign. That gesture is evidently part of his vow along the lines of a good Marxist and “redistribute” wealth. Good job taking Turley’s on-target sociological point.
If Joe had had the wit to limit his nepotistic grift to the traditional “you scratch my back…” politicians’ game of appointing each other’s relatives to various boards and councils, he probably would have never had a problem. That’s how he started out with Hunter But Joe being Joe (i.e., not that bright), he didn’t foresee that ferrying his dissolute crackhead son around the world on AF1 or 2 and having him come home with lavish gifts, contracts, and appointments might raise questions from those not easily satisfied by the farcical claim that he never discussed his (smartest person he knows!) son’s business activities, even on day-long overseas flights. Hopefully, Joe’s lack of imagination is now coming home to bite him, but a more skilled conman, or one without an errant computer, might have easily pulled it off.
Maybe we could make a start in curtailing these practices if no politician’s relative (to a specified degree, at least immediate family) could be considered for a paid political appointment. I won’t hold my breath.