Read on Twitter
I have been thinking about this periodically all day and I am even less inclined to agree with the idea that this is even the *appearance* of impropriety. https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1358213823417774082
Hunter Biden is a private citizen who has struggled with addiction.
Doing a brief search on Amazon returns over 5,000 books dealing with a person's personal struggle with the issue.
Doing a brief search on Amazon returns over 5,000 books dealing with a person's personal struggle with the issue.
Biden has a couple of unique aspects as well: he is a semi-orphan having lost his mother at the age of 2.
His father grew into a powerful US Senator with national aspirations as he was growing up.
His father grew into a powerful US Senator with national aspirations as he was growing up.
Biden has made some seriously bizarre choices as well from those of us on the outside of the family.
All of this will lead to an interesting book about a man who clearly felt he was in the shadow of those greater than him.
All of this will lead to an interesting book about a man who clearly felt he was in the shadow of those greater than him.
Even if his father never ran for president, this would be a book worth publishing because it is interesting: a child of the powerful who struggled to overcome addiction as well as the feeling of inadequacy.
But his father DID run for president. Granted at the time the deal was inked in the fall of 2019, no one outside those of us watching South Carolina's numbers was giving his father a chance.
There needs to be some kind of evidence from that to show that there was some benefit that the company would receive from a former VP who might not even become President. Or that it was solely based on the Biden name and not a compelling story of overcoming hardships.
Since there is a story to be told that is interesting (at least to me and apparently to Simon and Schuster), it has to be that the publishing house would get some kind of benefit. But what benefit would Joe Biden give them?
He was not in office. He did not have any power. He was not in charge of tax policy. He was running for President and doing so poorly (at the time).
Are we now going with the assumption that any child of a famous politician is getting something unearned merely by being the child of a famous person while ignoring that there could be other reasons for it?
Because that is a terrible idea. Even the ethically dubious decision that Biden made to be on the Burisma BOD was after Biden had two different stints as a board director for Amtrak (appointed by Bush in 2006) and the World Food Program USA (2011-2017).
Now we turn to President Biden's supposed endorsement of his son's book.
He was asked about it in a CBS interview. His response was:
He was asked about it in a CBS interview. His response was:
I have not seen that interview yet (it is on after the superbowl which I am also not going to watch). But that doesn't even appear to be anything other than a proud father happy his son is doing good.
It is not telling us to buy the book.
It is not telling us to buy the book.
It is not telling Jaime Harrison to order 150,000 copies to make it a best seller.
It is merely an answer to a question that expresses pride. It's refreshingly normal.
It is not ethically dubious. It is not even unethical. It is a stretch to the breaking point to say so.
It is merely an answer to a question that expresses pride. It's refreshingly normal.
It is not ethically dubious. It is not even unethical. It is a stretch to the breaking point to say so.
Hunter Biden had his personal problems splattered across headlines and stories for years. His own father was insulted to his face over Hunter's addiction in an attempt to hurt his father's chances at the Presidency.
Of all things to claim are unethical, a man connected to the powerful writing a book to tell his side of the story is not one of them.
Hunter has not had a chance to tell us his side.
He deserves that right.
Hunter has not had a chance to tell us his side.
He deserves that right.
