President Joe Biden’s disreputable, drug-addled son Hunter recently decided to sell his “art,” which sparked a round of hand-wringing over the ethical implications.
Hunter, you see, has no experience as an artist. And, based on the paintings we’ve seen, he has no discernible talent. But Hunter’s “artwork” will be sold at “a private and confidential opening” in Los Angeles, with the various pieces said to be priced between $75,000 and $500,000.
This is Clinton Foundation-style corruption all over again, without the pretense of a charity.
The White House says the sale is perfectly ethical because the buyer or buyers will be anonymous. As CNN reports, “the White House was involved in forming an agreement between a SoHo New York Gallery owner, Georges Bergès, and Hunter Biden in an effort to address any ethics concerns.”
As far as the “truth to power” media is concerned, they can wash their hands of this whole affair. After all, if the Biden White House says this is on the up-and-up, who could ever doubt that?
Then again, even President Barack Obama’s head of the Office of Government Ethics is raising both eyebrows over this phantasmagoric sale.
“It just is implausible that this art from an unknown artist would be selling at this price if it didn’t have the Biden name attached to it,” said Walter Shaub. He called it the “perfect mechanism” to bribe the president.
This all reminds us of how Bill and Hillary created their “Clinton Foundation” as an influence-peddling scheme meant to enrich themselves and help Hillary get into the White House. The press treated it as a legitimate operation because, well, that’s what the Clintons said it was.
However, the donations to the foundation – formed after Bill left office – followed an interesting pattern. So long as Hillary was a potential presidential candidate, donors filled the foundation’s coffers to the brim. Once she lost her bid in 2016, support for the Clinton “charity” collapsed.
A while ago, we charted the Clinton Foundation’s revenues, and here’s what that looked like:
Then again, Hunter’s art deal is also very much like the Biden Burisma scandal, whereby Hunter was handed an incredibly lucrative do-nothing job on the board of this corrupt Urkanian energy company, despite his having zero experience in the energy business. The only thing Hunter brought to the table was access to Joe, who was vice president in charge of Ukrainian matters at the time.
Despite the overwhelming stench of corruption, the media took the Bidens’ word that Hunter’s position on the board was completely legitimate and had nothing whatsoever to do with his father’s actions in office.
To any reasonable observer, the conclusion to be drawn from these events is that President Biden keeps trying to use his son to sell access to himself. The only difference between the Bidens’ influence-peddling schemes and the Clintons’ is that Biden seems mainly interested in enriching his son, not himself.
Then again, we just learned that Biden appears to have been a “direct beneficiary” of Hunter’s nefarious foreign business dealings, according to an ongoing investigation into the contents of Hunter’s laptop by the Government Accountability Institute.
In any case, if you want proof that Hunter’s “art” sale is nothing more than a thinly veiled bribery scheme, just follow the money. Take a look at the value of Hunter’s “art” over time.
Our firm belief is that the chart would look like this:
Does anyone seriously doubt that Joe won’t know who forked over half a million dollars for one of Hunter’s paint blotches, expecting something in return from the Biden administration?
As with so many political events these days, it’s worth asking yourself: What if Trump had arranged a deal like this?
The answer: A massive freakout by the media and Democrats, by celebrities, late-night “comics,” and the so-called blue-check crowd on Twitter. Never-ending calls for investigations and special counsels. Cries of “we told you so” by the never-Trumpers. All followed by calls for his impeachment.
With Biden, all we get is a shrug.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board