Okay, so 70% by value, not 70% of the people. That makes so much difference. He knew who the big spenders were. And isn’t that only who the art dealer said he knew? No one knows how many people told him on the side, “I’m the guy who bought painting X for $42,000.” There was no legal document drawn up as promised.
No one is bothered by the fact that the vaunted ‘protections’ Joe talked about were a lie?
“Hunter Biden is more than welcome to come in front of the committee. If he wants to clear his good name—if he wants to come and say, you know, these weren’t 20 shell companies, they actually did something—he’s invited today. We will drop everything.” - James Comer
Was that said during the same hearing that Hunter crashed? If so, you have a point.
How does one “crash” an event that’s open to the public?
What protections? What are you talking about?
Thank you. I was also confused by this and thought I was being stupid.
I’m guessing that’s either a garbled Republican talking point
or a garbled statement from former Press Secretary Psaki.
Sam is not dumb so I know he’s referencing something, I honestly just don’t know what it is.
I was referring to this:
I also remember the MSM claiming that this would prevent influence peddling. We also talked about it on this board.
Lots of discussion there about the ‘secret’ sales.
And, unless you have a cite otherwise - the dealer did keep his end of it, and Hunter found out who some of the buyers were thru other means.
But that percent, a person familiar with the meeting cautioned, represents approximately three of the 10 buyers who purchased Hunter Biden artwork. Bergès, the individual added, told the committee he did not disclose the identity of any of the buyers to the president’s son, and did not say during the interview that Hunter Biden knew the identity before the sales.
Instead, the individual said, Bergès indicated Hunter Biden knew the identity of one buyer through public reporting and a second because he saw the artwork at the individual’s house.
The dealer says there was no agreement at all to that effect. Certainly nothing legal. Are we supposed to believe that the big ‘protection of the people’ was just a verbal agreement with a guy? “Hey, don’t tell Hunter who bought this, M’kay?”
The implications made it sure sound like there was going to be a legal agreement to prevent the identities of the buyers from leaking out to Hunter. That did not happen.
I haven’t seen it but I also misread the news descriptions of the event.
Moskowitz was saying that Hunter was invited to testify about his businesses, so let’s go ahead and do that. The Republicans had already rejected this format, and Hunter had already skipped out on his subpoena. As far as the Republicans on the committee would be concerned, this would be like Alex Jones asking for a do-over to his trial, but still not providing subpoenaed materials. It’s a non-starter.
The Republicans seem to have been in a debate about whether to have Hunter arrested on the spot, when Hunter and his attorney left.
Hunter’s attorney is now arguing that Hunter’s initial subpoena was clearly intended to be part of an impeachment hearing against Joe Biden and would be unlawful, on that basis, without a vote to begin impeachment proceedings.
I believe that Comer had said (not to imply that we should trust what he says - just that this is what he said) that the hearings were about investigating the need for legislation around influence peddling by family members of those in the White House. If a court believed that, then Hunter’s subpoena would have been valid. If the court believed that it was intended as part of an impeachment inquiry then it might not have been.
I’ll note that laws that restrict influence peddling would be good, and that it is a worthy pursuit. Whether Comer himself might use any such hearings as research for that purpose or not, I’d hope that the Democrats would use it for that purpose.
Ill-targeted hostility that assumes ill-intent, baselessly, was what polluted the thread. Answering questions factually and honestly moves things along quicker and, if the facts are on your side, does more for your side than stonewalling. It’s like you have a tank, but you decide to hang out in a flimsy tent during a zombie attack because you’ve decided that you don’t want to get zombie saliva on your precious tank.
Don’t overthink the problem.
Do you have any evidence or cite that the dealer did not keep his agreement? Do you have any cite that says there was going to be a legal document for the agreement?
then?
“The gallerist will not share information about buyers or prospective buyers including their identities with Hunter Biden or the administration which provides quite a level of protection and transparency,” Psaki said.
Where are “the vaunted ‘protections’ Joe talked about”?
Sometimes I get so gobsmacked by the hypocrisy of the right. I know I shouldn’t; they’ve proven over and over that they have no real convictions. But this entire “Hunter Biden gets money from people … something, something, something … therefore Joe Biden is bad!” is so incredibly hypocritical in light of millions Trump made from foreign sources and Jared and Ivanka getting 2 fucking billion dollars from the Saudis it simply boggles the mind.
I get it. Hunter Biden is a typical rich kid asshole who makes money off his fathers name. Like, oh about 90% of the kids of the wealthy and 100% of the Trumps.
Not to mention some remarkable coincidences regarding Ivanka and several Chinese trademarks.
- [T]hree new Chinese trademarks [received] on the same day she dined with Chinese President Xi Jinping. (2017)
- [A]pproval for several new Chinese trademarks a week before President Trump announced that he wanted to lift the ban on the Chinese company ZTE, for violating US sanctions. (May 2018)
- Initial approval for 16 new trademarks covering a wide range of products that include “voting machines.” (October 2018)
The rest of those trademarks covered products such as handbags, shoes, wedding dresses, jewelry … nursing homes, and sausage casing.
I am just asking if someone said, “I move that …” Explain how that is a gotcha.
No thank you.
Can the zombies make a tank so big that God can’t lift it? Did you ever think about that?
“Seem”? What is it with you? He wasn’t invited or summoned or any such thing. Please move beyond this goofy hang up of yours.
No. This didn’t happen and at no point did it seem like this was happening.
It’s bizarre that you are having so much trouble describing what we can all see.