Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Burisma

Long before any of the Ukraine brouhaha came to light, I had read several books on corruption in the former Soviet Union and around the globe. Corruption was rampant as formerly state-owned properties were being privatized at ridiculously low prices (just one tiny example - a Russian fleet of fishing trawlers valued at $1 billion was sold off for $2.5 million). With such deals available, every manner of thug and criminal was attracted, none more ruthless or powerful than Vladimir Putin. And if a single fleet of fishing trawlers could be worth a billion dollars, imagine what oil and natural gas reserves might be worth.  Thus, corruption throughout government in all the former states of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine became the norm.

Officials were not just on the take, but involved in government shakedowns where prosecutors and their henchmen would raid corporate offices to steal documents and corporate seals that allowed the government to falsify ownership records, literally stealing the companies back from rightful private owners. They used these types of threats to extort billions from companies who refused to play along. Not coincidentally, one company that refused to play along was represented in court by Sergei Magnitsky, who was tortured to death for his efforts, leading to passage in the US of the Magnitsky Act (which was what the Russians sought to discuss at the Trump Tower meeting, but that is beside the point). What is important is that the Magnitsky Act was part of the U.S policy to penalize corruption in the former Soviet Union. This was all told in “Red Notice,” released in early 2015, before Donald Trump had even announced his candidacy, thus a book that makes zero mention of him. But it sheds light on the type of corruption surrounding Ukraine.

Based upon that book, Amazon's algorithms recommended “Thieves of State,” published in early 2016 (while Donald Trump was still considered a long shot). The author, a former journalist, left the profession to stay and help rebuild Afghanistan after the 2002 fall of the Taliban. Witnessing the effect corruption had on undermining trust and the rule of law, she became an active opponent of tolerating foreign corruption because she saw how doing so undermines our aims. In one passage, she counters the excuse that even if 80% of aid is siphoned off by corrupt officials, at least 20% still gets through, arguing those who the aid is meant for become resentful that we are essentially giving 80% to their oppressors. Our good deeds are seen as just the opposite and thus become not only a complete waste of money, but counterproductive.

Notably, in this book, she points to our stand against Ukraine corruption in 2015 as marking a sea change in US policy regarding our tolerance of corruption in pursuit of foreign policy objectives, instead making opposition to corruption an integral part of foreign policy.

All this was background reading that had nothing to do with the current president, but which provides a foundation for what I’ve learned since.

That said – and again, this is more background - as soon as Paul Manafort was named Trump’s campaign manager, I read into what his role was regarding Ukraine politics. It is not pretty.  Yes, politics is never pretty, but the difference between Russian/Ukrainian politics and the dirty nature of our politics is the difference between anarchy and the rule of law. It cannot be so easily dismissed. Going back to review that history provides additional color to what was transpiring in Ukraine from 2009-2015, with Russia successfully - with Manafort’s help - placing Putin’s chosen candidate in the Ukraine presidency. Thus began the corruption that eventually became the focus of Western democracies, the International Monetary Fund, the Obama administration and finally, Joe Biden.

It is instructive to understand the timeline leading up to the events that placed Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma and his father’s call for the removal of the prosecutor looking into the firm. In 2009, Hunter formed an advisory firm with two partners, Christopher Heinz (John Kerry’s stepson) and Devon Archer. Heinz preferred to stay away from high-profile opportunities, but Archer was unencumbered by conflicts of interest and sought opportunities where they arose. After pitching a real estate investment opportunity in Ukraine, Archer was approached by Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky about joining the Burisma board, as part of what he claimed was a desire to adopt Western transparency standards. These reforms were in response to investigations into the firm and Zlochevsky by then-Ukraine prosecutor Viktor Pshonka. Zlochecsky had already recruited a former president of Poland known as an ardent reformer to Burisma’s board.

When Archer told Hunter Biden of the board’s need for expertise on corporate governance, Biden suggested a law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner (David Boies’ firm), where he was “of counsel.” That eventually led to Hunter being offered a seat on Burisma’s board in 2014. Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 election battle over the Florida recount, is clearly a Democrat, but that is not a crime, nor evidence that one was committed in connecting Biden with Burisma. The important point is that Hunter was introduced to Burisma by his business partner, not his father. Furthermore, he was brought on as what was believed to be an attempt to create more transparency.

As it turned out, Zlochevsky was not the reformer he presented himself to be and pressure mounted for an investigation into his Burisma dealings. However, Viktor Shokin had replaced Pshonka as the prosecutor responsible for investing Burisma. Shokin was seen as weak on corruption at best, and likely involved in it at worst, prompting Europe, the IMF and eventually Joe Biden, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, to call for Shokin’s removal. Notably, Joe Biden was applauded while addressing the Ukrainian parliament in December 2015 when he attacked Russia, but his call to end corruption and limit the power of Ukraine’s oligarchs was met with “stony silence,” suggesting just how deeply-rooted that corruption was. That his call was backed by a threat to withhold $1 billion in aid was the “sea change” in policy that Sarah Chayes praised in “Thieves of State.” Withholding aid to stop ongoing corruption is prudent, whereas withholding it after the fact is as effective as whipping the dog today for what it did yesterday (which is what Donald Trump sought).

There is more, but there is nothing that says Joe Biden secured the role for Hunter or that he profited from his son's role. Furthermore, the evidence shows his call for a change in prosecutors was to increase scrutiny of Hunter’s company, not stop it. That is the crux of the matter.

Finally, a look at the character of those involved is warranted. Hunter is a mess, with serious addiction and relationship issues, but go back to around this time and you’ll find a video of Lindsey Graham speaking about Joe Biden’s character, choking up as he says you will not meet a better person than Joe Biden. That sentiment is common among people on both the left and right. Yes, he plagiarized a British Labor leader’s speech a couple of decades ago, and he does engage in some creepy, beyond old-school shows of affection. But I’ve yet to come across anything that suggests he is anywhere near corrupt. If anyone can provide something beyond leaps of assumption, I am all ears.

I’ve often said that one of life’s biggest disappointments is seeking evidence to back up a claim and finding you were wrong, while one of life’s biggest mistakes is making such a discovery and refusing to discard the claim. I’ve discarded many such claims when the evidence shows otherwise. In other words, I can be convinced – but the argument must be convincing. To date, the argument of corruption and Joe Biden regarding Hunter and Burisma has been nowhere close.

Monuments Meant to Honor, or Intimidate?

 My curiosity can send me down a lot of rabbit holes, and so it was when I saw the scene below involving a bunch of middle-aged white guys passing the time outside a courthouse in the 1949 movie Intruder in the Dust. I was curious about the monument they were gathered around, which included the inscription “Erected 1907” (Fig. 1).  

Fig. 1

With all the recent uproar over Civil War monuments and their removal, including the removal of one of Robert E. Lee, which provoked the Unite the Right unrest in Charlottesville, VA, I wanted to see what else was inscribed on this one, so I zoomed in for a closer look. What was legible was innocent enough, reading “In Memory of the Patriotism of the Confederate Soldiers of Lafayette County, Mississippi” (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2

But I was curious about the second part of the inscription that appears to be blotted out. Thus began my trip to the rabbit hole. A quick Google search brought up modern day images of the monument which still has the full inscription, including the obscured part that reads “They Gave Their Lives in a Just and Holy Cause” (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

No wonder it was blotted out in the film. And no wonder there is a movement to remove these monuments. This particular monument, like so many others, was erected during the rise of the South’s Myth of the Lost Cause more than a generation after the end of the Civil War at the height of the Jim Crow era when not only were southern Blacks denied equal access to buses, schools and dining establishments, but also equal protection under the law. That this monument sits in the square directly in front of the county courthouse was at best an insult to those Black citizens who saw it, and at worst, an intimidating reminder of the deprived justice their second-class citizenship was likely to deliver inside, just as intended.

That the bulk of these monuments went up at the same time that public lynchings were at their height in the U.S., with Mississippi leading the way with an estimated 539 black victims during the South’s reign of terror, peaking at about one every other week during the period when these monuments went up, according the Tuskegee Institute, only makes their existence that much more troubling.

One of the ironies of this particular monument, however, is that it exists where it does and is oriented as it is because of the actions of Sally Murray Falkner, grandmother of William Faulkner, author of the novel that inspired the film above. It was, in fact, the second such monument erected in Lafayette County, following a similar, but less strident, monument that had gone up the year before on the nearby campus of Ole Miss. That one simply references the 600 county sons who sleep in the nearby shade and of their battlefield bravery at Gettysburg and elsewhere. That did not satisfy Sally Falkner, who broke with the United Daughters of the Confederacy responsible for the original monument, leading her to raise money for a new one to be placed on the courthouse square, defiantly facing south, rather than north as originally planned.

What makes the irony all the more pointed is that Intruder in the Dust, which started me on this journey of discovery, could be considered a Social Justice Warrior piece of art, detailing the lack of justice a wrongly accused Black man could expect inside that very courthouse. 

Today, this monument is subject to the same controversy that so many other Civil War monuments face. Many in the South argue they are a testament to their history, their ancestors and their culture. But one has to ask, exactly what history and culture are they celebrating, and to what degree does that honor their ancestors? The cause they died for was not that of states’ rights as the Lost Cause argues, but to protect the institution of slavery they argued a state had the right to inflict upon their fellow human beings. We are right to want to remember that, but it should be done in museums where all the good, bad and ugly of our history can be put in proper context, including the individual sacrifice of many young men who owned no slaves. But it should not be honored, especially on our public squares.