I've already written on this topic multiple times, including the GML guys completely misunderstanding the first Trump impeachment. But a similar misinformation is also in a current post by Paul Sperry. I'm not looking at the RealClearInvestigation story, but Sperry's reference to Hunter Biden..
I can't tell if GML Nate Thurston, who will tell you he's not pro-Trump, never voted for him, was dense or simply spitballing without due diligence (yes, I'm listening to my podcast backlog), but I'll briefly paraphrase: "Well, Trump is not a lawyer, but he became aware of corruption (i.e., the Burisma oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky allegedly bought off Joe Biden by hiring son Hunter to a position for which he was obviously not qualified for, and when when the Ukraine prosecutor general Shokin started looking into the wrongdoing, Biden had him fired.), he tried to do something about it: good for him! I wish all the government was that motivated..."
This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start. First, the Zlochevsky money-laundering allegations predated Biden's joining the board. Second, Shokin's ouster went beyond Joe Biden, who had no such authority, but local anti-corruption activists, the IMF and the UK demanded it as well. Shokin's office, in fact, cleared Zlochevsky of British money-laundering charges. Third, there is no doubt Hunter's surname had a lot to do with his being named to the board, but board appointments are sometimes made without industry experience, and Burisma said Biden's salary was comparable in nature. Fourth, Trump had a vested interest in the status of Biden, a likely 2020 challenger. It was unethical for him to abuse the powers of his office for political self-interest. And Biden continued his anti-corruption push, yes, including Burisma allegations, after Hunter joined the board. There is zero evidence that Biden tried to intervene in favor of his or Hunter's personal interest.
Does that mean Joe Biden was in the right? No. Just like CPA's must avoid the appearance of a vested interest in the clients to which they are attesting, Biden had to know he wanted no appearance of a possible quid pro quo with an alleged money launderer. Some in the Obama Administration knew this and raised objections. Biden should have demanded Hunter turn down the appointment or should have recused himself from Ukraine matters. At best, Joe showed bad judgment.
Now as to Sperry's relevant discussion:
Within months, Yanukovych was exiled and replaced by Petro Poroshenko, who would later do Biden’s bidding – including firing a prosecutor investigating his son Hunter.... (Three years later, Democrats would impeach Trump for allegedly asking Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political rival, Joe Biden.)...The Obama administration’s enforcement agencies leaned on their Ukrainian counterparts to investigate Manafort, shifting resources from an investigation of a corrupt Ukrainian energy oligarch who paid Biden’s son hundreds of thousands of dollars through his gas company, Burisma...Ciaramella was carried over to the Trump White House. As RealClearInvestigations first reported, he would later anonymously blow the whistle on Trump asking Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to help “get to the bottom of” Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election, a phone call that triggered Trump’s first impeachment by a Democrat-controlled House.
Even Trump's version of the Zelensky phone call explicitly references Joe Biden, blames him for the termination of that very fine man Shokin, asks Zelensky for a favor, and sets up the extortion pointing to the fact Zelensky had few friends other than the US and Ukraine had done nothing for all the help it gets from the US. And Trump illegally froze Ukraine aid he himself had signed into law, even after Ukraine had complied with anti-corruption stipulations. I'm not in a position to judge whether Burisma got its moneys worth from Biden serving from the board, but Biden continued on the board after Trump's inauguration. Ukraine's parliament terminated Shokin.
