Arguments about Hunter Biden's laptop always leapsfrom documented events to conclusions that the evidence doesn't establish.
1. The Twitter episode
Yes, Twitter temporarily blocked the New York Post's account in October 2020 over its Hunter Biden story. That was a serious and, in my view, mistaken decision. The 51 former intelligence officials' letter also contributed to public skepticism, although what they said was, correctly, that the material had the "classic earmarks" of a Russian information operation. They acknowledged that they didn't know whether the emails were genuine and had no evidence of Russian involvement; they stated that the assessment was speculative.
That is not the same as establishing that the government ordered technology companies to suppress a true story. The Twitter Files documented contacts and raised questions worth investigating; they did not, simply by being published, prove every allegation made about them. The First Amendment question depends on evidence of government coercion or other legally significant government action, not merely the fact that government officials communicated with a private company.
2. The "big guy"
This is where the distinction between a proposed deal and an actual transaction matters.
The reference to "the big guy" appeared in a proposed business arrangement discussed by Hunter Biden associate James Gilliar. Tony Bobulinski, another business associate, subsequently identified Joe Biden as the person he understood the phrase to mean. That identification is relevant evidence, but it does not by itself establish that Joe Biden agreed to the deal or received money from it.
Imagine I email you proposing a shady business arrangement and say that The Orange Turd in the White House gets 10%. Does that establish that Trump agreed to participate, much less that he received a dime?
Of course not. It establishes that I made a proposal. To prove the rest, you need evidence of acceptance, participation, or payment.
The same evidentiary standard applies to the Bidens. There is no evidence Joe Biden knew of any deal or got any money.
3. Hunter Biden and Burisma
Hunter Biden's appointment to the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was vice president was certainly a legitimate subject for scrutiny. He was paid handsomely, and the arrangement created an obvious appearance-of-influence problem.
But the suggestion that Hunter was simply an unqualified rich kid who landed on a corporate board out of nowhere leaves out some inconvenient facts.
Hunter had been a senior vice president at MBNA, a major financial-services company. In 2006, President George W. Bush nominated him to Amtrak's Reform Board, and the Senate confirmed him. He subsequently served as Amtrak's vice chairman. This wasn't a Biden administration appointment; it happened under a Republican president.
He was also a lawyer and had experience with corporate finance and investment. Those are relevant qualifications for corporate board service. They don't make him an energy-industry expert, but corporate directors aren't generally hired to turn the wrenches themselves.
You don't have to be a welder to sit on the board of General Motors. You need to understand the business, finances, strategy and responsibilities of corporate governance.
Now, was Hunter paid an extraordinary amount for his Burisma position? Yes. Was his famous last name likely part of the reason he got it? He himself acknowledged that it probably was. And was taking the position while his father was Vice President a serious exercise in bad judgment? Absolutely.
But let's keep the criticism accurate. If the complaint is that wealthy companies pay enormous sums to well-connected board members whose names and connections may be more valuable than their actual work, that's a legitimate criticism. It's also a criticism of a much broader feature of modern capitalism, not a special discovery about the Biden family.
If the argument is that modern corporate capitalism corruptly grotesquely overpays officers and board members - well ok, we agree!
But the question is whether Hunter's appointment and compensation prove that his father participated in a corrupt arrangement. The answer is that there is no evidence of it. American policy supporting free Ukraine against Russian control was supported across the political spectrum, Republicans as well as Democrats; did they all do it in exchange for money? Investigations and congressional inquiries found nothing to suggest that Joe Biden received the alleged Burisma bribe.
Questionable judgment by adults who are not government officials, excessive compensation for corporate officials, and criminal corruption are not synonyms. We have perfectly good words for each, and they don't all mean the same thing.
4. The Ukrainian "coup"
This is perhaps the most entertaining leap in the argument.
The 2014 Ukrainian revolution followed months of mass protests after President Viktor Yanukovych abandoned plans to sign an agreement with the European Union, and escalated after a deadly government crackdown. Yanukovych fled the country, and Ukraine's parliament voted to remove him and hold new elections.
You can debate the legality and legitimacy of the transition, the role of outside governments, and the conduct of the various actors. But calling it a coup partially funded by USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy requires evidence connecting their funding to the overthrow itself.
The frequently cited $5 billion figure referred to cumulative U.S. assistance to Ukraine since 1991, including democracy-building and other programs. It was not a $5 billion fund for staging the 2014 revolution.
Funding civil society and democratic institutions is not the same thing as funding a coup. If someone has evidence of the latter, let's see it.
I'm old enough to remember when promoting democracy was a popular in America.
The bottom line
I have no problem with investigating Hunter Biden, examining the laptop's contents, criticizing Twitter's decisions, or scrutinizing the conduct of intelligence officials. Those are all legitimate subjects.
What I object to is treating a collection of circumstances, proposals, disputed interpretations, and political associations as though they prove a conspiracy.
A laptop can contain authentic emails. A son can behave disgracefully. A media platform can make a bad decision. Intelligence officials can make an ill-founded public statement. A politician can have a family member who is a drug addict (...btw what's the deal with Don Jr?).
Those facts do not prove the allegations. You don't get to skip the proof just because you dislike the people involved.
Otherwise, we could all save time and replace criminal investigations with a game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon: connect enough people, add enough insinuation, and eventually everyone is guilty of something.
Everyone.
Including you.
