参议员们应该问亨特·拜登什么，如果他们想停止阴谋论的话？世界粮食计划署美国委员会主席亨特·拜登(左)和美国副总统乔拜登于2016年4月12日在DC华盛顿。

如果参议院周五投票允许在对唐纳德·特朗普的弹劾审判中证人作证，民主党人会打电话给约翰·博尔顿，不可避免的是，共和党人会打电话给前副总统49岁的儿子亨特·拜登。

特朗普希望乌克兰政府调查拜登夫妇涉嫌腐败的行为——正如他在与乌克兰总统沃洛迪米尔·泽兰斯基(Volodymyr Zelensky)通话时所说的那样。2014年，亨特·拜登被任命为布里斯马董事会成员，布里斯马是一家总部位于基辅的天然气公司，由一名涉嫌腐败的乌克兰寡头控制。当时，乔·拜登是奥巴马政府乌克兰政策的核心人物。拜登和民主党坚持认为，乔和亨特·拜登都没有做错任何事，而提出其他建议就是兜售“被揭穿的阴谋论”

忘记阴谋论吧。亨特·拜登的“丑闻”隐藏在众目睽睽之下:这是中国众所周知的“太子党”式腐败的一个明显案例:雇佣有权有势的政府官员的子女——“太子党”——并希望好事顺其自然。美国公司在中国或任何其他外国这样做都是违反《反海外腐败法》(FCPA)的，摩根大通和其他公司都非常清楚这一点。该银行在2016年不得不支付2.64亿美元的罚款，以向证交会支付FCPA的指控。证交会表示，摩根大通“通过雇佣政府官员的子女参与了一项系统性贿赂计划，这些官员通常不具备担任这些职位的资格。”

如果拜登必须作证，下面是两党参议员应该问的一些关键问题。

你认为你为什么被任命为布里斯马董事会成员？

在接受美国广播公司新闻采访时，当被问及如果他是别人的儿子，他是否会加入布里斯马的董事会时，亨特·拜登回答说“可能不会”。共和党人最好问同样的问题，让他详细说明这个机会是如何来的。如果没有别的事情，它将会揭示华盛顿古老的“赚大钱”的肮脏艺术，以你的名义交易来致富。

你在布里斯马到底做了什么？

在宣布任命的新闻稿中，亨特·拜登被引用为“我在透明度、公司治理和责任、国际扩张和其他优先事项上协助咨询公司，将有助于乌克兰的经济和人民。”共和党人可能会问，他在布里斯马到底做了什么让“乌克兰人民”受益，或者促进了“透明度”和更好的公司治理。

你和你父亲讨论过多少次你和布里斯马董事会的约会，这些谈话的内容是什么？

迄今为止，亨特·拜登在这个问题上说的唯一一件事是，他曾经和他的父亲讨论过这个问题，他只是简单地说，“我希望你知道你在做什么。”这可信吗？就一次？在众议院弹劾听证会上作证的每一位现任和前任国务院官员都承认，董事会的任命至少造成了利益冲突的表象。此后，这成了媒体报道的主题，包括2015年纽约时报 一块。拜登应该被要求详细说明他和他父亲谈话的内容，以及他们是如何解决与他接受这个职位的明显冲突的。

你知不知道围绕着布里斯马及其共同创始人米科拉·兹洛切夫斯基的腐败指控？

这个问题实际上可能会有助于民主党人破坏福克斯新闻每天晚上重复的拜登腐败路线。谈话要点是，乔·拜登威胁说，除非解雇正在调查布里斯马的乌克兰最高检察官维克多·肖金，否则他将扣留乌克兰10亿美元的援助。被忽略的事实是，欧盟和国际货币基金组织也希望肖金下台，因为他们认为他腐败无能。

但不止如此。拜登可以作证说，是的，他非常清楚这些指控，部分原因是在2015年，即他被任命一年后，时任美国驻基辅大使发表演讲，呼吁乌克兰政府加大反腐力度，包括更积极地调查布里斯马的创始人，他提到了他的名字。亨特为什么要提起这个？因为这削弱了奥巴马-拜登政府想要扼杀对布里斯马的任何调查的想法。如果杰弗里·皮亚特大使2015年的讲话能说明什么，那么情况似乎正好相反。

2016年，布里斯马的律师正在与乌克兰官员和美国国务院讨论腐败指控，希望结束调查。你知道这些讨论吗，你同意对布里斯马的腐败调查应该结束吗？

这个问题可能会诱使拜登深深陷入布里斯马涉嫌腐败的泥潭，但他也可以辩解说自己无知，这样做证明了这些“太子党”类型的工作通常是一个什么样的骗局。这与弹劾无关。但这仍然是一项公共服务。

FIVE QUESTIONS SENATORS SHOULD ASK HUNTER BIDEN ABOUT UKRAINE BUSINESS TIES, TO PROBE CONSPIRACY THEORIES

What should senators ask Hunter Biden if they want to put the conspiracy theories to rest? World Food Program USA Board Chairman Hunter Biden (L) and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on April 12, 2016 in Washington, DC.

Should the Senate vote Friday to allow witness testimony in the impeachment trial against Donald Trump, the Democrats will call John Bolton, and, inevitably, the Republicans will call Hunter Biden, the 49-year-old son of the former vice president.

Trump wanted the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens for alleged corruption—as he said in his now infamous phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky, his Ukrainian counterpart. In 2014 Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of Burisma, a Kiev-based gas company controlled by a Ukrainian oligarch suspected of corruption. At the time, Joe Biden was the point man for Ukraine policy in the Obama administration. Biden and the Democrats insist that neither Joe nor Hunter Biden did anything wrong, and that to suggest otherwise is to peddle "debunked conspiracy theories."

Forget conspiracy theories. The Hunter Biden "scandal" is hiding in plain sight: it's an obvious case of what in China is known as "princeling" style corruption: hire the children of powerful government officials—"princelings"—and hope good things flow your way. It is against the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for U.S. companies to do this in China or any other foreign country, as JP Morgan, among others, knows all too well. The bank in 2016 had to pay a fine of $264 million to settle FCPA charges with the SEC. JPMorgan, the SEC said, "engaged in a systematic bribery scheme by hiring children of government officials who were typically unqualified for the positions."

Should Biden have to testify, here are some of the key questions senators from both sides of the aisle should ask.

Why do you think you were appointed to the board of Burisma?

In his lone interview about this, with ABC News, Hunter Biden responded "probably not," when asked if he thought he would have been on Burisma's board if he were somebody else's son. Republicans would do well to ask the same question and have him expand on how this opportunity came to him. It would, if nothing else, shed some light on the sleazy if venerable Washington art of "buck-raking," trading on your name to get rich.

What exactly did you do at Burisma?

In the press release announcing his appointment, Hunter Biden was quoted as saying, "My assistance in consulting the Company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine." Republicans could ask what exactly he did at Burisma that benefited the "people of Ukraine," or promoted "transparency" and better corporate governance.

How many times did you discuss your appointment to the Burisma board with your father, and what was the substance of those conversations?

The only thing Hunter Biden has said to date on this subject is that he discussed this once with his father, who simply said, "I hope you know what you re doing." Is this plausible? Just once? Every current and former State Department official who testified in the House impeachment hearings acknowledged that the board appointment at minimum created the appearance of a conflict of interest. It was the subject of press coverage thereafter, including a 2015 New York Times piece. Biden should be asked to detail the substance of his conversations with his father, and how they squared the obvious appearance of a conflict with his acceptance of the position.

Were you aware of the corruption allegations that swirled around Burisma and its co founder, Mykola Zlochevsky?

This is a question that actually could serve Democrats seeking to undermine the Bidens-are-corrupt line that's repeated every night on Fox News. The talking point is that Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in aid from Ukraine unless it fired the country's top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was looking into Burisma. Left out is the fact that the European Union and the International Monetary Fund also wanted Shokin gone because they believed him to be corrupt and ineffective.

But there's more to it than that. Biden could testify that yes, he was very much aware of the allegations, in part because in 2015, a year after he was appointed, the then-U.S. ambassador to Kiev gave a speech calling on the Ukrainian government to step up its anti-corruption efforts, including by looking more aggressively into Burisma's founder, whom he cited by name. Why would Hunter want to bring this up? Because it undercuts the notion that the Obama-Biden administration wanted to snuff out any investigations into Burisma. If the 2015 speech by then Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt is any indication, the opposite appears to be true.

In 2016, Burisma's lawyers were in discussions with both Ukrainian officials and the U.S. State Department about corruption allegations, hoping to bring the investigations to an end. Were you aware of these discussions, and did you agree that the corruption investigations into Burisma should end?

This question could lure Biden deep into the weeds on Burisma's alleged corruption, but he could also plead ignorance, and in doing so demonstrate what a scam these "princeling" type jobs usually are. It wouldn't have anything to do with impeachment. But it would be a public service nonetheless.