Biden’s involvement in his son’s dealings deserves a serious investigation. WP columnist changes his mind, calls for Joe Biden to be fully investigated over Hunter’s business dealings.
It’s also clear that Hunter received millions of dollars from Chinese and Ukrainian businesses for which he could offer little to no prior experience. His value to them was clear: his relationship with his father.
None of this directly implicated the elder Biden in any wrongdoing, which is why I — and many Americans — have largely ignored the story. But recent developments have gotten my attention.
Devon Archer, Hunter’s former business partner, recently testified before the House Oversight Committee that Hunter’s value to these firms was his family’s “brand” — his presumed access to the then-vice president. At the time, according to Archer’s testimony, Joe Biden attended dinners in Washington with Hunter and members of Burisma, the Ukrainian firm on whose board Hunter served. Joe Biden also regularly participated in phone calls with Hunter and his clients, Archer said.
That might not have been illegal, and Archer noted that the vice president had not changed policy to help Burisma. But it sure does stink.
The House Oversight Committee also claims Joe Biden used aliases in email conversations about Ukraine policy. In one instance, the committee reports, a document that included information about a call between the vice president and then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko was forwarded to one of Biden’s supposed aliases, with Hunter copied.
Again, this doesn’t prove Joe Biden was changing policy to fit with Hunter’s clients’ preferences. But it does suggest he was aware of Hunter’s dealings and wanted to keep his son in the loop.
One could dismiss this as simply another tawdry example of access-peddling. Maybe that’s all it is. But only a complete investigation can ensure that it’s nothing worse.
Hunter selling access to his father is disreputable but completely legal. Similarly, Joe Biden participating in meetings that his son asked him to attend would constitute questionable judgment but not illegal conduct. The trouble comes if it moved beyond that to a shared business relationship in which the vice president was an active partner.
