COMMENTARY: President Biden's son flunked his own course on ethics

By Berl Falbaum

In our last column, we discussed how U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t understand that taking gifts and free trips worth hundreds of thousands of dollars from a billionaire mega-doner to Republicans tarnishes his and the court’s reputation and creates huge ethical issues.

A mere few miles from the court, at the White House, we have a comparable problem. The president’s son, Hunter Biden, seems similarly blind how his business interests and dealings raise disconcerting ethical issues that, inescapably, involve his father.

No, we don’t want to visit the sins of the son on the father, but there is no way around it since, given the relationship, the two are intertwined.

In 2014, when Joe Biden was vice president, Hunter Biden accepted an appointment to the board of Burisma Holdings Ltd., one of Ukraine’s largest energy companies. He reportedly received $50,000 a month from Burisma. Through the years, he also had business dealings in China.  (To his credit, Biden gave up his Burisma board seat and disinvested from his Chinese business interests in 2019.)

While there are ongoing investigations on whether Hunter Biden’s actions involve any illegalities, the violations of ethics are fairly clear.  

At the time, the State Department ruled that Hunter Biden was not guilty of any conflicts, stating that he was a “private citizen.” Arguments that Hunter Biden was not a public officeholder and had a right to make decisions independent of his father’s position, unfortunately, miss the mark.

The relationships between father and son cannot be ignored, particularly when it arguably involves, at the time, the second most powerful political office in the world.

Here is the irony of ironies: Given the circumstances, even the State Department’s decision might be considered “political” since it ruled in favor of the son of the sitting vice president.

We also cannot ignore that Joe Biden was President Barack Obama’s “point man” on Ukraine, charged with investigating corruption at the highest levels of Ukraine’s government. He visited the
country several times between 2014-16.

We can surmise that Burisma knew what it was doing when it offered a board seat to Hunter Biden. Yes, he may be very bright and capable, but surely somewhere in the world there was an individual just as talented.

The company recognized the value of having the son of the vice president of the United States on its board. And it goes well beyond “public relations.” It implies that it has a security blanket, that should Burisma ever need that important phone call, it can ask Hunter Biden to make it.

Those dealing with Burisma—customers, contractors, suppliers, etc.—all recognize the inherent value of having Biden on the Burisma board, as do members of Congress who may vote on legislation affecting the energy company.

The implications of political influence exist; they cannot be avoided. Joe Biden, for instance, can argue all he wants that he would never have proposed any policies favorable to his son (and Burisma) but his actions would always have been suspect—even, one might add, if they were in the U.S.’s interest. Moreover, there were endless opportunities for Joe Biden to try and assist the company—an “off-hand” comment here and there, etc.

In his book, “Beautiful Things,” Hunter Biden, addressed the conflict of interest issue, writing:

“Did I make a mistake by taking a seat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company? No. Did I display a lack of judgment? No. Would I do it again?  No.”

Well, he got one out of three right. He was wrong in accepting the appointment, and he showed not just bad judgment, but terrible judgment.

He explained in an interview:

“... [W]hat I didn’t take into account was the way they would use the perception against my dad and for that, I wouldn’t do it again for that reason.”

This very talented man finally saw the light. Perception! Public officeholders need to avoid not just actual conflicts or interest, but the perception of conflicts. And thereby hangs the tale.
Hunter Biden also defends his decisions by pointing out that he also served on several other boards, and had the expertise to join Burisma.

That admission, of course, raises additional concerns that perhaps he should not have been a board member at other corporations/organization either.

So, some may ask: What can Hunter Biden to do to make a living? Answer:  There is no shortage of jobs that he could have taken to avoid charges of impropriety. One example: He could practice law and avoid cases—recuse himself—which might even indirectly raise potential conflict issues.

Or, apparently having artistic skills, he might try his hand at earning a living as an artist. He was criticized for participating in an exhibit which I thought was unfair and unjust. Here he was acting as an individual and his relationship with his father was irrelevant. If someone wants to pay an enormous sum for one of Biden’s works because he is Joe Biden’s son, that’s their business.

The good news: If we take him at his word, Hunter Biden has learned that lesson. A little late, to be sure.

Perhaps he should file a brief before the Supreme Court so he has the opportunity to counsel with Thomas on ethics.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran political columnist and author of 12 books.