Let’s try this again… Ivanka wasn’t a “private citizen”. Ivanka was a government employee, an official White House advisor and Director of the Office of Economic Initiatives and Entrepreneurship.
Hunter Biden is neither of these things, he is not an advisor, official or unofficial, he has no role in the White House, no office, no staff. He is a private citizen.
Forget it, Dave. It’s PoliticalPurityTestTown*.
That there is even a debate on whether or not there’s an ethics problem here does not bode well for America’s immediate future IMO.
They can do that, and they’d all be guilty of bribery at that point, after they’ve given the public notice of a potential conflict of interest. That would be suicidal. Just because it’s blind to the public and the parties involved doesn’t mean it’s blind to the FBI.
Wow. Were you this fired up about nepotism when the RNC bought $300K worth of Don Jr.'s book to force it to the top of bestseller lists? I sure was. Or when the Chinese government issued 18 trademarks to a company called “Ivanka Trump LLC”? I sure was.
I’m not a huge fan of Hunter trading on his father’s name like this, as I’ve said earlier in the thread. But if you didn’t call out the Trumps while they were stealing everything that wasn’t nailed down (as Republicans cheerfully did), then your opinions carry zero credibility on the topic of graft or corruption. Nobody’s going to listen to you, nor should they.
Does anyone know how old Hunter Biden is?
Google: How old is Hunter Biden?
But who cares? Maybe Hunter sucks. Why would this matter at all?
We’re having this conversation because to some of us, it matters. Whether it matters in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. Most of the conversations we have on this message board don’t matter in the grand scheme of things. We’re just talking here, right?
The broader discussion has included President Biden. If you’re just criticizing Hunter for profiting from his name, and think this has nothing to do with the President or his administration, then that’s fine with me. I don’t care a whit about Hunter. But if you’re making a criticism of the President on relation to this, then that’s nonsense.
Is it not however the case that art valuation is only remotely related to quality, but very tightly related to who the artist is? Who their influences were, who their mentors were, their life story, and yes… their celebrity name. It’s obvious someone wants to own something with the name ‘Biden’ on it, and this is driving the valuation far beyond the merits.
I mean, can you think of any no-name creator of comparable work who pulled in a half million for it? Most people flog their wares in patchouli-scented vendor tents for years and are lucky to pull in a thousand bucks a piece by the end of their career. It’s different when you’re famous and everyone knows it.
Look, I’m on record saying that after the Trump years, Republicans are now, undeniably, the party of enthusiastic graft and corruption when their side does it. They have zero room to complain about any of this.
But Biden is clearly an entry-level artist with no professional training, and not an existing fixture in the art world. I don’t believe anyone’s buying access to Joe via Hunter’s art transaction. Hunter is going to rake in at least a cool half mil for doing next to nothing while named Biden, which is the only job he’s ever had.
No matter how many people correctly point out that the Trumps were a million times worse, no matter how many people point out this scandal is very convenient to the right-wing outrage machine, this kind of behavior is never going to sit well with me. Neither the nepotism, nor the attitude “hey, wealthy failsons gotta make a living”, nor the attitude “it’s different when we do it.”
But why does this matter? Maybe Hunter is a piece of shit. Who cares? What does this have to do with the President or the Democratic party?
If you’re still asking at this point in the thread, I’m reminded of the aphorism “it’s impossible to awaken someone who’s pretending to be asleep.” I have no interest in trying.
I’ve looked. I haven’t seen any actual explanation of why this matters for the President. The President has no control over Hunter’s behavior.
Lots of people come up quickly and go from a couple of grand per piece to hundreds of thousands (or millions) a few years later.
Let’s start with Loie Hollowell, for example. Her highest priced piece sold for over $2 million and she was a nobody not that long ago.
She made her name solely through her art. Hunter made his name by being a Biden. She has a BA in art and an MA in painting. Hunter is a law-school grad who (AFAIK) has never even practiced law.
The title of this thread is, “Hunter Biden artwork attracts ethics scrutiny,” not “Hunter Biden is enjoying undeserved success.” As I and any number of posters have stated, if anyone wants to criticize Hunter Biden for cashing in on the family name, have at. If that’s all you’re doing, I don’t think anyone in this thread is actually arguing with you.
The argument in this thread is about the “ethics” part.
So, I have a couple of open questions to anyone in this thread who thinks there’s an ethics issue.
What, exactly, is the ethical rule that’s being breached, or potentially breached? Who, exactly, is breaching it, or potentially breaching it?
Excellent summation!
So the question that I answered (and quoted from you) wasn’t really your question? What question would you like an answer to?
Agreed - this is a nothing burger of a ‘scandal’. No doubt, Hunter is a headache for President Biden at times, but this is inconsequential.
There exists the potential for someone like Mark Zuckerberg to say “hey, I’ll keep your failson afloat by throwing a half mil for his crappy art, if you’re willing to play ball on regulatory issues.”
Theoretically the blind trust is a vehicle to mitigate that conflict of interest. But it wouldn’t be very hard to circumvent it.
When conflicts of interest exist, the expected strategy is to somehow extricate oneself from the conflict. Not to say “I know this looks shady, but believe me it’s totally legit.”