So Kushner's phone was hacked around the same time as Hunter Biden's laptop? Why has the latter captured the media so much more then the former?
Did you know Hunter at the time he joined Burisma had an 18-year career as a Yale-educated corporate lawyer, PE and VC investor, and lobbyist?
Obviously he's a nepobaby but nothing on his resume is atypical of the types of people who serve on boards for companies like Burisma.
Top law school, cushy investor and advisory gigs, serving on boards, etc.
https://proof.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2019/0930/Joe-and-H...
Here's the profile of someone who served alongside Hunter. Pretty similar: https://www.sofocleous.com.cy/en/people/christina-sofocleous...
The chairman of the board was a Columbia-educated lawyer from Sullivan and Cromwell (similar to Hunter's Boies Schiller role) who went into investment banking at Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley.
By what metric is $65,000 per month "pretty high?" Compared to other Burisma board members? Board members are typically paid the same base salary.
Directors at Exxon get about a sixth of what Hunter made: https://contracts.justia.com/companies/exxon-mobil-500/contr... So yes, it's pretty high.
I’m not sure what evidence of impropriety one is supposed to derive from a publicly traded American company having a different board compensation scheme than a privately held Ukrainian company… perhaps you could connect the dots more explicitly?
Regarding compensation for the position, you had said "of course he was compensated, board members are often compensated". I am pointing out that it is very unusual for them to get that much compensation, to the point where you should be suspicious.
That would imply there are many similar nepobabies serving in such roles. "Nepobaby" does not necessarily mean someone is not qualified for a given role. It means they utilize their parents' status to grow their own. Obviously a Senator's child has massive advantages throughout their life. As described above... those advantages often produce exactly the life path he had (just like his Burisma board colleagues, and just like many board members of many corporate boards).
Perhaps you should say explicitly what you mean by "you should be careful about..." What specifically constitutes "being careful" about such a thing? And what exactly are they being careful of? The possibility of an appearance of impropriety?
Getting sweet gigs because your dad is a Senator and then a VP because people love hiring cushy connected people to cushy connected jobs is not, in and of itself improper. It's absolutely a reason to pay close attention to all such family members of all such politicians, but if the "paying close attention" doesn't yield actual evidence of actual wrongdoing, you can't just assume otherwise.
P.S. Don't put in quotes things that people didn't actually say. That was quite clearly not my line of questioning.
If you are working for the government on relations with a particular country, and your son gets a job paying $750,000 a year working at the biggest company in that country, then you need to resign or get your son to resign.
Please let me know if you want further clarifications.
Does this also invoke appearance of impropriety to you?
It is true that there were conflicts of interest for other work that Hunter did, though, such as when his father was visiting China on a diplomatic trip.
> he was paid $65,000 per month, which is pretty high.
I doubt it's high for a petrochemical conglomerate.
Because i distinctly recall the head of what to that point I though was a credible journalistic organization saying she didnt want to "waste people's time" with that.
Performatively pretending the above didn't happen is intellectually dishonest.
Your hyperbolic and partisan language makes it obvious you aren't simply a neutral observer, and implies that you had a horse in that race, and you're still mad that he lost.
Or else you aren't American, in which case your investment in the Trumpist narrative is just kind of pathetic. Like Americans giving a shit about the British royal family.
There literally is a NYT article alluding the whole store is fake and should be dismissed, and (post election ) NYT article admitting it is not. Your prefered the definition of "bury" must exclusively involve shovels and earthwork.
Also this, verbatim: https://x.com/NPRpubliceditor/status/1319281101223940096?
Not quite sure what de
Archer was quite explicit in his testimony that if anything, Hunter was basically scamming them with the illusion of access.
Which, well, is bad, but if anything, the situation reflects that Joe never let his son influence him to do anything corrupt, which turns it entirely into a bunch of TMZ level drama about Hunter's drug and prostitution habits.
And I still heard about the laptop plenty before the election. If that is a buried story, then plenty of widely published and discussed stories would be buried by your definition.
The amount of attention it has received has always been silly.
Kushner's phone data was in the possession of Dutch intelligence who didn't want the public to know they had it -- and as far as I know, this was not public knowledge until today.
Kushner is a boring nerd and Biden is a Chad with a huge dong.