Joe Biden was implicated in corruption scandals relating to his son Hunter

The argument

Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, used his father’s position for his own financial gain. Hunter joined the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas firm, at a salary reported to be up to $50,000 a month, where he arranged an introduction between Joe Biden and Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to Burisma. Whilst holding a board position is not problematic in itself, Hunter Biden had no obvious qualifications or experience relevant to the role, suggesting he was hired to leverage the then-Vice President’s political power. In 2016, Joe Biden called for the removal of Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma and other companies for corruption, and put pressure on the Ukrainian President and Prime Minister to ensure this happened. This was at the same time that Biden was working on US-Ukraine policy as Vice President, and he specifically called for stronger anti-corruption measures. Hunter Biden is also rumoured to have received $3.5 million in ‘consultancy fees’ from Russian businesswoman Yelena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow. It is also alleged that Hunter has profited from providing Chinese nationals with links to the Chinese government with introductions with Joe Biden. These cases show Hunter Biden profiting greatly from his father’s political influence, and Joe Biden in turn using that influence to support Hunter’s business interests.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The main source of the allegations, a report by the New York Post, has been criticised for failing to verify many of its claims, with one journalist refusing to put his name to the article. There is also little evidence that Hunter Biden received the alleged $3.5 million, according to his lawyer - the sum was paid to a company with a name similar to one that Hunter has shares in. There was also a wide consensus that the Ukranian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin was himself corrupt. Whilst Joe Biden may have called for his removal, the US government, the IMF and the EU also shared his view - to blame Joe Biden is to exaggerate his personal influence. Burisma was not charged for any wrongdoing.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A lack of sector experience is common on corporate boards and establishes that a name had value, not that the father traded on it; the premise infers an arrangement from an appointment. The Baturina payment is disputed on the record — his lawyer states the sum went to a company with a name similar to one in which Hunter Biden held shares — so the figure cannot carry the weight placed on it, and the Post reporting behind several of these claims was published with parts of it unverified and at least one journalist declining a byline. [Rejecting P2] Shokin's removal was declared US policy and was shared by the IMF, the EU and Ukrainian reform advocates, who regarded the prosecutor as an obstacle to corruption cases rather than a driver of them. Attributing the outcome to a family interest requires showing that one official's intervention was decisive and ran contrary to the position his government already held. Burisma was not charged. [Rejecting P3] The principle is not in dispute, but it does no work unless the two factual premises hold. As stated, the argument moves from proximity and appearance to a finding of corruption without establishing that any official act was taken because of the family interest.