The Partisan Politics Behind Hunter Biden's Burisma Appointment: An Analysis
The appointment of Hunter Biden to Burisma has sparked a debate on qualifications and bias. Proponents of this appointment argue that his background in the Delaware bar makes him well-qualified, while critics claim he lacks relevant experience. This article delves into these arguments, examining the broader context of political bias in appointments and the rule of law.
Introduction to the Issue: Evaluating Hunter Biden's Qualifications
Qualifications Experience
Hunter Biden's appointment to the board of Burisma has been met with skepticism, primarily due to concerns that he lacks applicable experience for the role. Critics argue that his background as an activist rather than an experienced professional in theenergy sector is questionable. However, supporters contend that his connection to the Delaware bar provides him with relevant competencies. This piece explores the merits of both perspectives.
Attacks on Hunter and Joe Biden, Echoing Hillary Clinton's Experiences
The Pattern of Republican Attacks
The Bidens, like Hillary Clinton, are frequently the targets of Republican-led investigations for simply belonging to the Democratic Party. Donald Trump and his supporters have led chants of "lock her up" for Clinton, yet she has not faced criminal charges despite extensive investigations. Current Republican efforts to investigate the Bidens similarly lack substantive evidence. This raises questions about the integrity of the legal system and the motives behind these investigations.
Republican Attempts to Impeach Based on Partisan Bias
Impeachment Efforts and Republican Critics
Barack Obama’s appointment of Michael Steele to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) exemplifies how partisan bias can affect legal appointments. The SEC is crucial for corporate registration and oversight, yet Steele, a Republican lawyer with limited regulatory experience, was appointed. This appointment was criticized for lacking adequate qualifications, thereby highlighting a recurring pattern of political favoritism in legal and corporate appointees.
The Case of Hunter Biden and Delaware Bar
Delaware Bar Credentials and Industry Knowledge
One counterpoint to the critics' arguments is that Hunter Biden’s membership in the Delaware bar might provide him with significant experience in corporate registration, a critical aspect of Burisma’s operations. Delaware is a leading jurisdiction for corporate registration and governance, and his legal experience could be highly relevant to his role. However, it's important to differentiate between legal expertise and industry-specific experience, which may be necessary for executive positions at energy firms.
The Need for Credibility and Accountability in Appointments
Critique of Partisan Republican Efforts
It should be emphasized that rich and politically connected individuals often require less experience to secure well-paid roles. Their connections and network can often be enough to secure positions. The idea of "applicable experience" is often a facade, and genuine expertise is not always a requirement for such appointments. The critical issue is whether the appointee can effectively fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities and provide strategic direction.
Voluntary vs. Professional Experience
Board Members and Experience
Another point of contention is the notion that board members, particularly in non-profit organizations, often lack professional experience in the specific industry of the company. For instance, independent school boards members typically do not have educational backgrounds, but their role is to ensure the governance and strategic direction of the institution. Similarly, it is argued that board members for Burisma do not need to have direct industry experience as long as they can effectively manage the company's fiduciary responsibilities.
Conclusion: A Call for Objective Evaluation and Rule of Law
The Importance of Objective Evaluations
While Hunter Biden’s qualifications as a board member for Burisma may be subject to debate, it is important to evaluate his credentials objectively and based on their relevance to the role. The current political climate, marked by partisan bias and the targeting of Democrats, compromises the integrity of legal and regulatory processes. Requiring objective evaluations of appointees, regardless of their political affiliation, is essential to uphold the rule of law and ensure fair and just appointments.