As I reported yesterday, When the Biden team tried to construct a plan to deal with the ethical issues raised by anonymous buyers buying Hunter Biden’s artwork, they really stepped in.
Jen Psaki admitted that the White House was involved in the construction of the plan, but tried some Orwellian spins, arguing that denying public knowledge of who these buyers were somehow made everything more transparent.
This even caused a response from CNN and Obama’s ethics expert Walter Schobb. Schub told people on CNN that he did not believe this claim, and that the White House’s deal to help Hunter sell art was “the perfect mechanism for sending bribes to others.” [the] The President” is in an industry “notorious for money laundering”.
But now, even CNN legal analyst Elie Honig believes that the White House has stepped in and inserted itself into this equation. Previously, the Biden administration could say that everything Hunter does depends on him. Now they concocted the deal and gained recognition. Not only did this get them into trouble because of anything from it, but because of their participation, it immediately triggered a moral conflict.
The source told CNN that the White House participated in an ethical agreement with the art gallery that sold Hunter Biden’s paintings.
“This looks terrible to the White House. They now have a complex moral issue at hand,” said @eliehonig. pic.twitter.com/NtZ9dEBddq
— CNN (@CNN) July 10, 2021
“This looks terrible to the White House. They now have a complex moral issue at hand,” Honig said.
There is nothing to stop buyers from telling the White House or Hunter Biden that they bought art.What prevents anyone from saying, “Hey, I want to buy art. Now I am looking forward to the meeting with your father that we are talking about.” We did see this in the past, and Hunter was there with “Big Shot” Joe is his business partner. Why is it different now?
We should also note that Georges Berges is an art dealer whose name is reserved by the White House through ethics. He has an interesting history. according to New York Post.
Bergs, 44, often exhibits works by Chinese artists and told a Chinese network that he is keen to open other art galleries in Beijing and Shanghai in 2015. “I always have a question about how China changes the world in terms of art and culture,” Bergs told China Daily in 2014.
Bergs was accused of defrauding investors in a 2016 federal lawsuit. Ingrid Arneberg claimed that she invested $500,000 in the Berges gallery for the promised expansion, but he used cash to repay the old debt. Bergs later counter-sued Anneberg and the case was settled in 2018.
In 1998, he was accused of using lethal weapons to attack and create a “terrorist threat”, but was rejected. According to documents from the Santa Cruz High Court, he expressed “no objection” to the attack and received a 36-month probation and 90-day imprisonment—the only public information about the case.
So for sure, there is no problem there.
The White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates even tried to argue that the White House’s entry into this moral dilemma is more proof of how ethical they are. “The president established the highest ethical standard of any government in American history, and his family’s commitment to such strict procedures is a good example,” Bates Tell the Washington Post.
In the eyes of pigs.
