Having nothing better to do, I spent my early morning walk
today imagining what Hunter Biden might say, were he called before the Senate
as a rebuttal witness, so to speak, to John Bolton [those being the names at
the top of the Democratic and Republican wish lists.] Here is how I imagined it could go. Names, dates, and other details to be
supplied, of course.
“In 2015 [?], I was contacted by a representative of the Burisma
corporation, a natural gas company in Kyiv, Ukraine. I was offered a seat on the board of the
company at a monthly salary of $50,000. I
have no knowledge of or experience in the fossil fuel industry, and I do not
read, write, or speak Ukrainian or Russian.
I am not a fool. It was perfectly
obvious to me that the sole interest of the Burisma company in me was my
relationship to my father, who was then Vice-President of the United States. [This next part is tricky, and depends on the
provable facts.] I immediately
recognized that I had a choice among three options: I could reject the offer out of hand as
unacceptably sleazy; I could accept the offer and attempt to use my connection
to the sitting Vice-President to corruptly influence American policy toward
Ukraine and the Burisma company; or I could accept the offer, scrupulously
avoid the slightest mention of the position or the company to my father, and
take the crooks for the fifty thou a month they were offering. I immediately rejected the second option, and
after some deliberation chose the third.
My choice was sleazy but not illegal.
Why did I take the money in return for doing nothing? Because I have had a troubled life, during
which I have struggled with drug addiction, and I wanted the money. Why then did I refuse to play ball with
Burisma? Because I love my father, who has suffered unimaginable
personal losses during his life, and although I am morally compromised, I
simply refused to put my father in the position of having to choose between his
principles and his only surviving son.
That is the sum and substance of my connection with the
facts of this trial. Were my actions
worthy of condemnation? Of course. Do they in any way reflect badly, or indeed
at all on my father? Not at all.
Let me add one final comment, not as an excuse for my
choices but to provide some context that may be useful. This Senate chamber is currently occupied by
one hundred duly elected United States Senators, a not inconsiderable number of
whom have profited in the past or will profit in the future from choices morally
comparable to those I made.
Now I am ready to answer your questions.”
6 comments:
Questions: didn't you realize that sooner or later your taking that job would become publicly known and could compromise your father's political future? It's hard to imagine that you didn't realize that and if you love your father so much, why did you do something that would be sure to stain his political career? Maybe there is some ambivalence that you refuse to recognize in your love for your father? Envy? Unconscious hostility? An unresolved Oedipus complex that comes back to haunt your family so late in the game?
Wallerstein's question are interesting ones but are not really germane to the moral and political issues. It would be absolutely wonderful if Hunter Biden made a statement along the lines you suggest, but I am not sure if has the mental and moral clarity to do so. There is is a good chance he will flub, bluster and fluster on the stand if he is called (which he probably will be if the thing shapes up to being a proper trial)
If this has been posted previously then please excuse me. If not, then it is certainly an interesting perspective.
https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/13/documentary-released-monday-sheds-new-light-on-ukrainegate/
Charles Pigden,
You're most probably right that Hunter Biden lacks the mental and moral clarity to say the kind of thing Professor Wolff outlines above. And given that, he also lacks the mental and moral clarity to analyze the ambivalences underlying his relation with his father.
Chilean president Michelle Bachelet's son and daughter-in-law got involved in some sleazy business deals claiming falsely to be able to influence Michelle Bachelet to favor the business interests of the people involved. When questioned publicly about the whole affair (which almost destroyed Bachelet's second term, 2014-2018 and sank the progressive reforms which she had proposed), her son accepts no blame and accuses a rightwing plot against him and his mother. One wonders how an intelligent and apparently ethically scrupulous political figure like Michelle Bachelet has a petty con-man and conspicuous consumer (he had a special weakness for Lexus convertibles) for a son, but children often model themselves after aspects of their parents which their parents don't display and even repress.
A rare nonsequitur by Wolff, emotions coming through instead of thoughts in my humble opinion. Herder, Saussure, Vuk, Trubetzkoy, jakobson, McQuown, Pike, Bloomfield, Greenburg, Trager all addressed in their different ways how thoughts, speech, emotion change culture and perhaps this is what is happening presently. If Descartes were alive today he would have said be damned with my thoughts I feel, and hence, truly think I am. This is 2020. Lets call the whole thing off and think this miserable planet out of existence. The language is bringing the problems.
Post a Comment