A lot has been said about the impeachment proceedings and both sides have their arguments – which are not entirely baseless. The problem with this process is that is bound not to be a legal but a political one, gravely impacted by the interpretation of the president’s behavior rather than factual evidence. So depending on the political alignment of American Congressmen, their judgment is going to be completely different.

Such is the case of both articles that the House voted on last week. Under “abuse of power”, Democrats see a president seeking to solicit favors from a foreign government to discredit a political opponent and Republicans see one inquiring about conduct of a presidential candidate and his son, who has been employed by a Russian-linked Ukrainian oligarch for the past 5 years.

How you view it is going to depend on your subjective interpretation of Trump’s behavior rather than outright evidence.

Was Trump seeking damaging information on Biden? Sure. But you also have to remember that he sought facts not fabrication. And it is hard to argue that revealing that a front-runner for American presidency on the Democratic ticket was involved in suspicious or even illegal behavior while in office as VP, would be harmful to the USA. On the contrary, if there was any doubt as to what Biden’s or his son’s actions in Ukraine were during his time in office, the American voters not only should but must know. That it would benefit Trump’s campaign is entirely secondary if, in the process, criminal or any other harmful activity was exposed.

Similarly, regarding the article on obstruction of Congress, Democrats see an uncooperative president and Republicans see one who declines to be dragged into a highly partisan process that is meant to smear him – much like it has been the case for the past three years. All assaults on him have, thus far, failed to produce any incriminating evidence (including the lengthy inquiry by the special counsel Robert Mueller).

Is it, therefore, surprising that he refused to allow Democrats run a new reality TV show at his expense? One that would likely be going on for months as they paralyze actions of the White House by summoning Trump’s aides one by one to grill them in front of TV cameras?

Nobody can reasonably argue that Democrats act in good faith since many of them voiced demands of impeachment long before the call with Ukrainian president even happened.

However, as speculation about the events and the people involved in the Ukrainian drama continues to swirl around, the media have rather poorly emphasized the facts we know for certain – and they certainly don’t look good for Joe Biden..

What Hunter Biden was really involved in while sitting on the board of one of the largest private gas companies in Ukraine, Burisma Holdings is going to remain quite opaque. The company itself claimed he was heading its legal unit – but young Biden disputed that earlier this year, speaking to New York Times. Of course if there was any corrupt behavior that could be proved it would instantly become one of the biggest scandals in American history.

Given the magnitude of such a revelation, however, I don’t think it’s plausible for us to expect it suddenly being discovered, especially as the topic has been subject to investigations by the Ukrainians in the past few years.

The real problem for Biden, however, lies elsewhere.

What We Know

We know for a fact that Hunter Biden was employed by Burisma Holdings, one of the largest independent gas companies in Ukraine, founded and owned by Mykola Zlochevsky, a Russian-linked oligarch.

We also know that Zlochevsky served as the Minister of Natural Resources between 2010 and 2012 and then as the Deputy Secretary for Economic and Social Security on the National Security and Defense Council in the government of Mykola Azarov (a pro-Russian puppet prime minister, currently under sanctions by the EU and the US), during Viktor Yanukovych’s Russian-friendly presidency that collapsed by 22nd of February 2014.

Once the disgraced president fled Ukraine, Vladimir Putin moved in and annexed the Crimean peninsula by 26th of March 2014.

As these events were unfolding, on 11th of March 2014 a Ukrainian lawyer representing Zlochevsky requested the London branch of BNP Paribas bank to close his client’s account and transfer the remaining $23 million balance to Cyprus (where the company holding Burisma is actually registered in Zlochevsky’s name) – but the transaction was stopped by UK’s Serious Fraud Office, in light of the political developments in Ukraine.

Despite quickly deteriorating conditions (or maybe because of them) Zlochevsky recruited Biden as well as his business partner Devon Archer to join a few other high-profile Westerners – including former president of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski (who supported Euromaidan protests against Yanukovych in Kyiv) – on the board of Burisma in April 2014.

The circumstances – escape of Yanukovych from the country and a distinctly anti-Russian tide sweeping Ukrainian society, coupled with Russian aggression in the east of the country and annexation of Crimea, give credence to the idea that the businessman sought to protect his company by bringing prominent Western figures on board.

However, by the end of 2014 Zlochevsky faced corruption investigation himself and fled the country. After 3 years the charges were dropped and he briefly returned to Ukraine, only to escape it again in 2018 after prosecutors took interest in him once more after journalists discovered dubious ties between him and the current president Petro Poroshenko, implicating both of them in graft.

As of 2019 Zlochevsky reportedly resides in Monaco.

Nevertheless, unfazed by the investigations into his employer’s highly dubious behavior (and his flight from Ukraine), Hunter Biden continued to serve on the board of Burisma for another 5 years, until his mandate expired in April this year.

Interestingly, he was named a member of the board of Burisma on April 18th. 3 days later, on April 21st Joe Biden arrived in Kyiv to show support for Ukraine and promote diversification of its gas sources away from Russia.

Let’s sum it up – while Joe Biden was in Kyiv supporting Ukrainian decoupling from Russia, his son had just been hired by a disgraced Ukrainian oligarch (with strong Russian ties), who spent years as a high ranking official in the Moscow-friendly government that was brought down by protesters just 2 months before – and remained working for him despite investigations into alleged corruption that prompted Zlochevsky’s escape from the country.

I don’t know about you but if I was a son of American Vice President and my employer was sought by law enforcement on charges of graft I would look for an immediate way out instead of pretending nothing has happened.

Similarly, if I held one of the highest public offices in the country and my son was found to be employed by a highly dubious character known for his ties to a hostile foreign government I would pressure him to exit this relationship immediately.

And yet, none of it bothered the Bidens.

In fact, Hunter joined the company while it was already under investigation.

Naturally, it doesn’t prove that either of them were involved in any criminal activity – but it doesn’t mean Joe Biden can get away from this affair scot-free.

He claimed he never spoke with his son about his work at Burisma – a claim that is dubious at best, as he portrayed himself as the leading official in the Obama’s administration dealing with Ukrainian affairs.

Not only has he visited the country a number of times since 2014 but he pressured its government to fire the attorney general Viktor Shokin in 2016, who fell out of favor not only with the US but the EU and several international institutions as well – allegedly for not doing enough to root out corruption in the country.

While Trump is most likely wrong in claiming that Biden had personal interest in firing Shokin to protect his son, it is quite clear that he had been involved in Ukrainian affairs for at least three years – since early 2014 until Obama finished his term at the end of 2016.

Is it plausible that he never spoke with his son – who was a board member in a large, independent gas company in Ukraine owner – about his work for it?

Of course it may be impossible to prove that he did (and if he did, then he lied to American public about it), so let’s take his statement at face value. Let’s assume he, indeed, never spoke to Hunter about Burisma – what does it tell us then?

That American Vice President and a serious presidential candidate for 2020 was unaware (or uninterested) that his very own son was employed by an Ukrainian oligarch who spent years as a high ranking official in the pro-Russian government and was pursued for crimes of corruption that drove him out into exile?

That neither he nor his son have seen anything questionable about this employment?

Politicians, their friends or relatives are not necessarily employed to provide direct favors in exchange for a hefty paycheck but rather just do things they would simply be expected to do in their new line of work.

It is understandable that Hunter Biden promoted Burisma’s interests around the world, as he was employed by it – and he did that while carrying the name of the Vice President of the US. Whether or not he directly solicited favors on behalf of his employer by leveraging this name is of secondary importance – his sheer presence offered protection and lent credibility to Zlochevsky and his company.

Consciously or not, Joe Biden’s reputation served the interests of an oligarch allied to Kremlin.

We don’t have to know for sure that he either remained blind to it as he was still in the White House or lied about it now. It is equally damning and disqualifies him as a candidate for any public office – let alone Commander-in-Chief.