Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.
Family becomes very important when one holds elected office in the United States.
Family doesn’t just offer emotional support and a safe harbor among the stresses of public service. Family provides an avenue for enriching the clan without breaking bribery laws.
For those unfamiliar with the contrivances of corruption, the tactic is painfully simple. Someone with political or business interests affected by elected Dad goes to Son and says: “How would you like to earn $50,000 a month for chewing gum and watching TV?”
Son says, “I’m really good at those things! Believe it or not, I can do both at the same time.”
His soon-to-be employer exclaims: “There we go! I knew I saw talent. You start tomorrow. We need you to show up for a meeting twice a year. And tell your dad I said ‘what’s up,’ okay?”
And so Son receives a hefty salary for “consulting” or “sitting on the board,” as long as elected Dad sees his way to granting certain favors to Son’s employer in the halls of power. Beautiful synergy at work.
People who earn an honest living might be surprised to learn that this sort of bribery-once-removed is entirely legal and happens as a matter of course among the political class. Spotting such “soft corruption” is not forensic rocket science. Look for a pol’s kid (husband, brother, father, et al.) doing magnificently-compensated work in a field where he knows not his rump from his right elbow.
Using the “rump and right elbow” heuristic, we find a series of questionable employments among, for example, Nancy Pelosi’s son Paul; Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea; and Joe Biden’s brother James.
Demonstrating soft corruption to the public, however, can be tricky. When caught grafting in the family, pols can sow reasonable doubt with: “What? My kid can’t earn a living by the hot sweat of his brow? I knew nothing about his chewing gum for the people I’m giving tons of state funds to!”
Absent some evidence of criminal wrongdoing, neither the public, the law, nor journalists has any right to riffle through the private finances of a pol’s spawn. Said spawn can hop from sinecure to sinecure (or hold several concurrently) without the public connecting the dots and seeing the full picture.
Hunter Biden has just crossed into new territory.
Hunter Biden had the bad luck to knock up a woman from Arkansas, and she is pursuing him for child support in that state. The court and Biden’s baby momma DO have the legal right to know Biden’s finances, so as to determine Lil’ Biden’s future standard of living.
According to Baby Momma’s attorney Clinton Lancaster, Hunter Biden has failed to produce records of his income and its sources as ordered by the court. Bill Bowden of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette writes:
Among the things Biden has failed to provide … are addresses, telephone numbers, names of financial institutions, a list of all sources of income, a list of all companies in which he has an ownership interest, copies of deeds to properties he owns, copies of his 2017 and 2018 tax returns, and unredacted copies of his other tax returns.
According to the article, all Hunter Biden’s financial records to the court would remain under seal–meaning the press, public, and Daddy Joe’s political opponents can’t go in and explore them in the public court filings.
But either way, turning over the paper trail shouldn’t matter. Bribery-once-removed is not a crime, as we have discussed. Even if Biden’s finances went on public record or leaked, it’s not like the country would be shocked to find out Hunter Biden was sucking on teats besides Burisma.
The mainstream media likely wouldn’t even report on it, just turn a blind eye and carp some more about how people are “emolumenting” President Trump by staying at his hotels.
So … why is Biden holding back? Why not fork over the records and quiet this whole thing down?
The question arises: do Hunter Biden’s financial records point to non-gray-area wrongdoing by himself or Daddy Joe? Does his financial paper trail indicate bribery-once-removed, with the “once-removed” removed?
If so, Hunter Biden finds himself in a rare pickle. If he omits select information from the court to avoid implicating himself or his father, he’s defrauding the court. Upon finding out–and Baby Momma’s attorney would make it his business to find out–the court could become very disappointed and make Hunter Biden sit in the corner … of a cell.
But if Hunter Biden turns over self- or other-incriminating documents, the judge might take a peek and say: ” Oh dear. I have a duty to report this to the appropriate authorities.”
Then the FBI, IRS, and their experts in financial proctology would start to hold meetings with Hunter Biden and his representatives. Subpoenas would be delivered. At that point, even the New York Times and CNN would have to take off the blinders and report on the investigation.
As Adam Schiff likes to say, that would be a “bombshell.”
Stay tuned …