I believe you're referring to what the Biden campaign said to Politico, that Biden could have had (in Politico's words) "some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi" but "any encounter would have been cursory". [1] The Washington Post notes that Hunter Biden did arrange for a different business partner to shake hands with Joe Biden at an existing public event, and speculates that he could have done something similar for Pozharskyi. [2] While it's only speculation, that does amount to another possible scenario where the email is accurate. But I wouldn't call such an interaction a "meeting" exactly, and it would scarcely be evidence of corruption.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lash...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/10/14/hunter-bi...

Or better yet: Body cams for all politicians. Or camera + audio recordings of all government rooms and corridors. All encrypted, hashed and archived with a very specific and difficult to fake process that can "unseal" them.

I don't think I'm a genius or anything, but why aren't we putting really smart people on this problem and giving them plenty of funding? I constantly think we're just a few steps away from putting in a small set of technological solutions that would over time solve all our political/criminal problems.

E.g. Just imagine a world where all politicians, CEOs, major figure-heads are safely and securely recorded constantly. Think of all the ridiculous talking points and "Scandals" that would go away, be disproven, or never occur at all.

That was tried (recording the oval office for historical purposes). Then it was immediately weaponised by the political opponents and the recording system promptly removed.

Are you just adding some historical context and additional information? Or are you saying that to dismiss my idea/suggestion?

Well, I think it will result into the same consequences. It would be immediately weaponised by the political opposition and would be retired almost as soon as it was introduced.

All "things" can be weaponized to various degrees. The good has to outweigh the bad, and we can't dismiss potential solution areas because they can be weaponized to some degree or have some set of negative consequences. A lot of the things we take for granted that exist currently could just as easily have been argued-against under the banner of "can be weaponized by the political opposition". And we've seen that potential, and put various "checks and balances" in place to try to stem that possibility.

In my mind, the constructive way to proceed would be, and I'd hope that you or others would indulge me on this: How can we have a tamper-proof evidentiary record of all the conversations that politicians engage in whilst minimizing the potential of it being regularly abused/weaponized and compromising the privacy of the individuals involved?

False dichotomy

It would be if I was presenting an argument. However, I was asking out of curiosity. Their response seemed to be a criticism and I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt by giving a valid alternative interpretation.

Criticism is not dismissal

Stay on topic, please.