Did the impeachment process somehow exonerate Hunter Biden? His father certainly seems to think so. When NBC’s Savannah Guthrie presses the question of Hunter’s work in Ukraine, Joe Biden snaps at the Today host, “You’re saying things you don’t know what you’re talking about.” Eventually, Biden claims that no one has “found anything wrong” with Hunter’s work in Ukraine except for an “image problem”:

GUTHRIE: Has it occurred to you that there’s a certain irony here, that here the president is accused of and has acknowledged wanting to get information about your son Hunter and his dealings with Ukraine, and this process of impeachment has ensured that everyone knows about Hunters’s dealings with Ukraine.

BIDEN: That’s a good thing, and no one’s found anything wrong with his dealings in Ukraine, except they say it sets a bad image.

Which is not to say that there was nothing wrong with it. Has anyone really done a credible investigation into the conflict of interest in Joe Biden’s intervention in 2016? By “credible,” I mean one not involving Rudy Giuliani? A credible investigation would have to include why Joe Biden was allowed to conduct foreign-policy decisions about Ukraine while the Obama administration was well aware that his son worked for one of the oligarchs they suspected of corruption, too.

If no one bothers to look, well, Biden can keep claiming that “no one’s found anything wrong.”

GUTHRIE: Well, do you agree that it sets a bad image?

BIDEN: Yeah, and my son said that.

GUTHRIE: Do you think it was wrong for him to take that position —

BIDEN: No.

GUTHRIE: — knowing that it was really because that company wanted access to you.

BIDEN: Well, that’s not true. You’re saying things you do not know what you’re talking about. No one said that. Who said that?

GUTHRIE: Well, don’t you think —

BIDEN: Who said that?

Er … literally everyone says that, because it’s painfully obvious. Hunter Biden had no prior experience in natural gas, the energy industry in general, or in Ukraine before getting $600,000 a year to sit on the board of Burisma.  It’s so painfully obvious that even Hunter Biden said it was likely the reason in his interview with ABC’s Amy Robach last October. “If your last name wasn’t Biden,” Robach asked, “do you think you would have been asked to be on the board of Burisma?” Biden replied, “I don’t know. I don’t know. Probably not.”

Guthrie, who seemed intimidated at times with Biden’s response, does insist on getting Biden to answer what qualifications Hunter had for the job besides being Joe’s son. Joe clearly hasn’t got an answer for that question either:

GUTHRIE: Don’t you think that it’s just one of those things were people think, “Well, that seems kind of sleazy. Why would he have that job if not for who his father was?”

BIDEN: He’s a very bright guy.

The world is filled with “bright guys,” some of whom actually have experience in natural gas, Ukraine, or both. Why didn’t Mykola Zlochevsky appoint one of them to the board instead of Biden? Regardless of whether it worked or not, the only value Hunter brought to Burisma was the connection he had to the vice president of the US, in an administration that was starting to intervene in the corrupt politics of Ukraine.

GUTHRIE: I guess the question I’m kind of asking is, was it right?

BIDEN: Appearance. It’s appearance, yeah. Well, he said he regretted having done it. Speak for himself. He’s a grown man.

Hunter said he regretted having done it in the same interview that he couldn’t come up with any qualifications he had for that job. Biden’s going to keep getting asked these questions until both he and Hunter come up with answers that actually work.