Suffice to say that there are a nearly endless number of jobs that he could do that would likely keep him under radar, providing the pay was reasonably near normal and the sources of funds weren’t clandestine and guarded.
Oh, and I learned of this story on CNN. Their expert being interviewed was Walter Shaub.
Of course. Unless you hired him via an untraceable shell corporation and were paying him a million bucks a year to groom dogs.
Nothing. He is not at fault and I’m not accusing him of having done anything unethical. Hunter is not at fault either. He’s just trying to make a living.
The problem is, it looks bad. Not because the right can exploit the fact that it looks bad. That’s politics. Democrats would do the same were the shoe on the other foot. They’d be foolish not to. That’s what politics is now and has been for more years that I’ve been alive. Remember: “Call him a pig fucker…”
Unless Hunter Biden has been a struggling artists all these years with real talent, this is straight out opportunism. Sons of oligarchs and monarchs around the world have been doing this time immemorial. Unless you find nothing wrong with that, then you have to be a little uncomfortable with this.
But no executive or director positions. Or any creative works, like being an artist. Or any positions where it was possible that some bit of his pay may come from unknown parties.
If he was a server in a restaurant, would his tips be scrutinized, his customers suspect of being influence peddlers?
How will you know his pay? Is he required to disclose his earnings to the public as a private citizen? If he doesn’t, will that “look bad”?
I live in Trumplandia, so it wouldn’t work for me, but if I lived in a much bluer area, what if I hired him because I thought it would increase my customer base having his name on my groomer list, even though he’s not really that good a groomer, and paid him more than I pay my “real” groomers?
Decades of anti-Hillary propaganda got Trump elected.
The GQP weill always find “scandals”. Walking on eggshells in order to prevent this is a fool’s game. There is no ethical problem with Hunter selling artwork. Especially when steps are taken to prevent him from knowing who the buyer is. What could be more ethical?
Preventing the buyer from knowing who the artist is.
Hunter is not fucking Banksy. The only reason people are willing to pay unusually high prices for his art is because of who his daddy is. Can we just admit that?
Even though no one did anything wrong. There’s something very wrong with that, something I can’t really get my head around.
No, the right is claiming that it looks bad, and you all are just believing them.
You can clearly see they didn’t. What scandals were involved with Tiffany Trump? We don’t go after family that is not holding office.
Republicans do.
And they get you to go along with it.
Sure, the guy running for office.
Not his son.
Sure it is, for those who buy his paintings. Who actually sits around and stares at their 5-7 figure artistic acquisitions? It’s bragging rights. “I’ve got a Monet” “I’ve got a Maltese”, “I’ve got a Bush”, “I’ve got a Biden”.
But there’s nothing corrupt or wrong with this, it’s just the way the art world works.
Yeah, that way people can impress their friends that they have an artwork made by someone famous.
Out of all the shenanigans that rich people get up to, buying art is pretty much towards the bottom of the list of problematic behavior.
And it’s only a story because the right wing scandal machine has made it one.
Sorry, I did read what you said backwards. My bad.
But that’s just ridiculous. Would a Monet be worth more than the canvas it’s painted on if you didn’t know it was a Monet? Why is a reproduction not worth as much as the original, if it’s just about what it looks like? Would you pay as much for a reproduction of the Mona Lisa as for the real thing?
Why is not preventing Hunter from knowing who bought it not enough? How can someone peddle influence if they are anonymous?
It’s bragging rights for rich people. “This was made by someone whose name you know!” That’s all it’s about.
That may be opportunism on Hunter’s part, but so what? If you suddenly became super famous, and someone offered you 100k for the shoes you are wearing, would you take the offer?
Then what is it that looks bad? If there is no concern over influence peddling, and there are no ethical breaches, what is the actual problem?
We definitely have evidence that someone suggested some form of mitigation to Hunter.
That’s beside the point. Joe can insist on anything he wants, but Hunter has no obligation to listen.
Your ideas that Hunter should sell the paintings under a pseudonym or wait until after Joe leaves office are both incredibly poor business decisions from Hunter’s standpoint. He would be foolish to take those courses of action even if Joe insisted upon them.
That’s a synonym for “good business practices”. Celebrities bank on their name to sell stuff. That’s what branding is. There is nothing unethical about it aside from the general “down with kapitalism” sort of criticism.
Now, if General Yang in the Chinese Army bought a painting for millions of dollars and then Joe Biden goes on a tour praising China, and you can connect the dots with more than innuendo, that’s a different story. That’s corruption. But selling stuff at a premium because your dad is PUSA is nothing new or surprising, or wrong.
They did some work? I mean, Jared was assigned to fix everything from infrastructure to Israeli-Palestine relations, but as far as I could tell he stood there silent and motionless like the creepy wax figure he appears to be.
I remember that he was silent for so long that The Daily Show played clips of him with Gilbert Gottfried as his voice. And then eventually, we heard him talk.