I'm trying to be polite here. I'm not convinced your response deserves it, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

(10-23-2019 06:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So is the line drawn because it was 7 figures and not 6?

I never mentioned 7 figures... nor 5. The distinction to me is quite clear. In one, I'm doing the same thing either way... and just using a method to pay for it that marginally favors me and to which my company is indifferent. In the other, my business is quite obviously (at least trying to) being bought. In one, the price my company pays for products and services is the same. In the other, we don't know... and there is reason to suspect I might be looking out for my own interests over the company's.

If I want to use your logic, yes there is a difference between me walking home at the end of the day with a company pen versus a company computer in my briefcase. Stealing company pens isn't cool, but nobody really cares. Stealing company computers is a crime. I suppose in your mind this is the difference between 1 figure and perhaps 3 or maybe 4. [/quote]

Quote:If you're wanting to investigate a company seating a blood relative of a US politician, when there isn't evidence that the hiring resulted in a positive result for the country or company, how far down do we start? Again, a bit of a slippery slope to suggest that simply hiring Hunter is worthy of an investigation - at least Tanq's thought thought that Biden might have tried to obstruct an investigation is concerning.

Quote:And I fail to see how your Staples anecdote is relevant to this conversation. Are you providing Wal-Mart a service? Just because Hunter hadn't worked in oil and gas, doesn't mean he didn't provide value in areas of law, finance, etc. Guy did graduate from Yale Law School and has a ton of finance experience.

You say my comment isn't relevant and then go off in two different directions here. I've answered your first part. Yes, if they're getting my company's business because it benefits ME, then I'm providing them a service. The question is, am I still providing my COMPANY a service... or are my interests at odds with them? If my company ends up paying MORE because I'm directing business to Walmart because I'm getting paid by them, then that's a major issue.

You keep acting like I'm claiming there's an issue. I don't know if there is or not and neither do you. World wide there are millions of people who graduated from 'top' law schools and have tons of financial experience... and lots of them don't make $600,000/yr.

Had he been hired by Exxon, I am quite sure that there would be at least a cursory review and oversight to make sure that there was no conflict of interest. It wouldn't be illegal to hire him as you note, but the potential for conflict exists and it should be and would be monitored, as is Trump's potential conflict with his resorts. No such oversight exists within the Ukraine, and Trump asked for some.

Again, and you keep dodging this very clear issue....
I'll try and boil it down so you can respond...
Apparently Ukraine was so corrupt that it took international pressure to get them to act against a corrupt prosecutor... so why is Hunter Biden wanting to work there? Is it because they offered him 600k while XOM offered only 400K and Morgan Stanley offered 300k? Are there so many other Yale Law School finance guys that he has to go to one of the more corrupt nations on the planet to get a good job? Those are things we could perhaps find out by asking Hunter. Maybe the winters (or the women, so legends go) in Ukraine are just irresistible?

What we can't find out domestically is what Burisma thought they were 'buying' and why. Given the industry, the nation, the history and the position (son of the VP), these are not unreasonable questions.