‘Hunter Biden’s Story Is the American Story,’ Hunter’s Art Dealer Announces
Hunter Biden’s art dealer, Georges Bergès, announced to the New York Times Friday that Hunter’s artwork is a testament to the “American story.”
The president’s son, who grew up under the tutelage of a United States senator since age three, is supposedly a bastion of the American dream, or so Bergès claimed to the Times. “Hunter Biden’s story is the American story, Bergès declared. “It’s a redemptive story.”
Hunter’s American “story” includes being under investigation by the FBI for money laundering, according to CNN, along with reportedly using the N-word, using his father’s last name to cut deals, demanding millions of dollars to unlock Libyan assets, flying to Communist China with his father, maintaining a stake in a Chinese company while his father is president, living in a mansion in Malibu, sleeping with prostitutes, and smoking parmesan cheese.
A part of the American dream, of course, is selling artwork to anonymous investors for hundreds of thousands of dollars while his stepmother reportedly displays the artwork in the White House.
Bergès tried to tamp down concerns of shady wrongdoing to the Times by revealing he only is the caretaker of Hunter’s art endeavors. Only he sets the prices, vets big-money clients, and negotiates with buyers, he bragged.
“It’s all on me,” he claimed. “Who is buying and who is not, it’s solely on my shoulders.”
Though Hunter’s American “story” has escaped the microscope of the media for some time, being censored by Twitter just before the 2020 presidential campaign, the Times raised significant unknown details Bergès has not disclosed.
“Would there be contract provisions for purchasers designed to minimize any ethical concerns? Would foreign nationals, for example, be excluded from purchasing?” the Times questioned. “He deflected the questions, asserting that as a private dealer he must keep those details confidential.”
Bergès’s deflection from hiding answers to questions about the existence of ethical concerns seems to square with Bergès’s own story.
An investor in Bergès’s gallery reportedly sued him for fraud and breach of contract in 2016, and he filed for personal bankruptcy in 1998, was arrested in California, and was “charged with assault with a deadly weapon and ‘terrorist threats.’”
Bergès also planned to be the “lead” Chinese art dealer in 2015, as Hunter reportedly consummated deals with the Communist Chinese and earned tens of thousands of dollars each month by serving on the board of Burisma in 2014.
“My plan is to be the lead guy in China; the lead collector and art dealer discovering and nurturing talent from that region,” Bergès schemed. “I plan to find and discover and bring to the rest of the world those I consider China’s next generation of modern artists.”
In late October 2021, Bergès was photographed wearing a Camp David hat. As Breitbart News reported, it is still not known how Bergès would obtain such a prize without the help of the presidential family.
So far, Bergès has reportedly managed to sell multiple paintings by Hunter for a total of $375,000.
Meanwhile, the White House has praised Hunter for his business acumen. “The president remains proud of his son,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in response to a question about ethical concerns.
Hunter has also defended his art business as a “pretty courageous thing to do.”
“Is to have the courage to kinda go out there and do that, and, you know, I could just stay my studio and paint for myself, and, ahhh, and, and, and I ultimately do do that,” the recovering drug addict said, trying to find his words.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Liberals Keep Voting For Leftists – It’s Ruining The Country
By Dennis Prager
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Two Meaty Op Ed's:
Durham Unravels the Russia Case
His indictments reveal facts embarrassing to former special counsel Robert Mueller and the press.
By The Editorial Board
Special counsel John Durham’s latest indictment is an important step in unraveling what really happened in the long tale of false Russia-collusion allegations against the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. The facts in the indictment add to the evidence that this was from first to last a dirty trick by Hillary Clinton's campaign—and that the media were its gullible promoters.
Mr. Durham this week indicted Igor Danchenko, a Russian national who worked at the Brookings Institution in Washington and who was the main source for Christopher Steele’s dossier claiming Donald Trump was in secret cahoots with Russia. The FBI interviewed Mr. Danchenko in 2017 as part of its investigation of the dossier, and the indictment claims Mr. Danchenko lied repeatedly, depriving the FBI of crucial information. (Mr. Danchenko’s lawyer has indicated his client will plead not guilty.)
Mostly notably, the Russian hid the extent that he was working with a Democratic public-relations executive with ties to Hillary Clinton. Press reports have identified the executive as Charles Dolan, a Clinton associate who in 2016 was actively working to make Hillary the President. The indictment suggests Mr. Dolan was behind several of the salacious and derogatory claims about Mr. Trump that Mr. Danchenko fed to Mr. Steele. Mr. Dolan’s attorney told the New York Times that his client could not comment on an ongoing case.
The purpose was to present the FBI with oppo-research that masqueraded as “intelligence,” and it worked. Mrs. Clinton lost the election, but the Russia tale sabotaged an incoming President with relentless media assaults and a special counsel investigation. The country spent years obsessing over the Trump conspiracy that didn’t exist—rather than the Clinton conspiracy that did.
This Durham indictment reads like a story with more to come, but some lessons are already clear. One question is why the country is only now learning these facts. The Durham indictments treat the FBI as the duped party, but the record shows former FBI director James Comey and his investigators knew from the summer of 2016 that Clinton campaign fingerprints were all over the dossier.
A transcript in the Danchenko indictment suggests that FBI officials knew Mr. Danchenko was lying in the 2017 interviews. But they did nothing to blow the whistle, nor to tell the public or Congress everything they had learned about the origins of the Russia collusion tale.
The Durham prosecutions also speak poorly of former special counsel Robert Mueller. Mr. Mueller’s job was to learn the facts about the collusion allegations, and he had access to everything that the FBI had learned. Yet the Mueller team, led by Democratic partisan Andrew Weissmann, never told the public the Clinton side of the story.
The media also has a lot to answer for. In its conformist disdain for Mr. Trump, the Washington press corps with rare exceptions pursued the Russia collusion story with partisan blinders. They gave each other awards for stories that in retrospect amounted to nothing or, worse, misinformation. Anyone who raised doubts about this narrative, even as the facts mounted against it, was deemed a “Trump enabler.”
The Washington Post this week offered a first sign of media self-reflection, noting the Durham indictments “cast new uncertainty on some past reporting on the dossier by news organizations,” including its own. Yes they do.
Former Attorney General Bill Barr, who was also vilified by the press, deserves credit for giving Mr. Durham the status of a special counsel to protect his investigation after the change in administrations. Mr. Durham is telling a story that many, if not most, in Washington would prefer to stay hidden. All the more reason for him to keep telling the public the facts, and holding people accountable.
+++
On Russiagate, Durham Indicts the Press Too
His latest arrives just in time to expose a pathetic ABC News ‘special’ report on Christopher Steele.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
It is the nature of any inquiry that more information is gained with the passage of time. Today’s information is more complete than yesterday’s. It affords better insight, deeper perspective and sounder judgment.
And this is exactly what’s wrong and upside-down with ABC News’s recent “special report” on Christopher Steele and his dossier. By any measure—man-hours invested, expertise, intellectual rigor, standards of accountability, resources deployed—the credible efforts, by a proverbial country mile, were not those of Mr. Steele and his “primary sub source,” but their debunkers, including the Mueller task force, the FBI, the Justice Department’s inspector general and its special counsel John Durham.
Through a pitiless accumulation of detail, we now know the efforts of Mr. Steele, Glenn Simpson and their journeyman gofer Igor Danchenko were a joke, a flimflam. And any journalist approaching the story five years later would frame it this way, though not the parade of reporters from ABC, including Martha Raddatz and Pierre Thomas, who play it docudrama style for an obvious reason: So they can trail off at the end and ignore the fact that it was all a hoax, never mind the 100 shoes that have dropped since.
Another shoe dropped on Thursday, after this column was half-written. You can find the details in the indictment itself, which is worth reading, as if Mr. Durham gave himself the assignment of rubbing the media’s face in the stories it let get away when it abandoned its standards of skepticism and reportorial rigor. To wit, Mr. Danchenko, whom Mr. Steele employed to put distance between himself and his fabrications, never even had a conversation with the Russia-connected U.S. businessman Mr. Steele’s allies quietly presented all over town as a source for key revelations, including the alleged scurrilous hotel tape and the alleged Trump-Putin conspiracy.
Mr. Danchenko just made the conversation up, according to the indictment. Much else that he and Mr. Steele passed off, and embellished, as originating from Russian sources apparently came from a Democratic public relations guru with Hillary ties. (Mr. Danchenko has indicated that he intends to plead not guilty to the charge of lying to the FBI.)
Mr. Steele’s own defense for all this, in what laughingly passes for an interview with ABC, amounts to: You can’t prove a negative. He also lays on a howler of the begging-the-question school: His unprovable dirt on Mr. Trump couldn’t have been Russian disinformation because that would be inconsistent with Mr. Steele’s theory that the Russians were trying to help Mr. Trump.
This is like saying, “I know there was a second shooter in Dallas because no other fact is consistent with my theory of two shooters in Dallas.”
But it works with ABC. The only journalist with a perceptible IQ seems to be former New York Times reporter Barry Meier, who patiently explains Journalism 101 to an ABC interviewer, saying that Mr. Steele can claim to believe anything he wants, but must show evidence if he expects others to believe it.
But the most epochal stupidity is provided by two ABC producers, Lucien Bruggeman and Matthew Mosk, who insist that, regardless of flaws, the dossier “proved prescient” because it revealed Kremlin influence operations aimed at the U.S. election.
This has reality backward. Mr. Steele was exploiting the pre-existing, known habits of the Kremlin to make his own fabrications plausible. I’ve cited my own 2015 email to colleagues saying it looked like Putin trolls were getting aboard the Trump express. This was not a searing insight. It was akin to saying the sun appears to be rising in the east this morning. By then, the whole world knew the office building in St. Petersburg where Russia’s trolls stir up controversy and generate click revenue. A year earlier, NATO’s secretary general publicly laid out how they were promoting the anti-fracking cause. If you don’t understand this by now as a journalist, you aren’t paying attention.
It’s no surprise that ABC’s exercise in inhibited corporate journalism, obviously structured not to embarrass corporate journalism over its own role in the Russia hoax, was led by that embodiment of corporate neoteny, George Stephanopoulos. The term is from biology. It refers to the preservation of juvenile characteristics into adulthood to appear unthreatening and invoke protective parental feelings.
Our press spent three years pursuing the Russiagate red herring, remind yourself, in preference to giving an honest, searching account of the Trump phenomenon, one of the most interesting stories they would ever cover. It’s almost as if our media had a contact case of Hillary neurosis, sharing her need to falsify what happened in 2016. But at least their comeuppance is a torpedo aimed at the mainstream press’s post-objectivity business model of pleasuring its audience by feeding its prejudices.
The flaw in this strategy is now apparent. When reality breaks through, the public has only their news sources to blame for their disappointed fantasies. Whatever else Mr. Durham accomplishes, he may be saving the soul of American journalism.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment