Yes, and only artwork, definitely not influence. The person responsible for anticorruption efforts, and rooting out any sophisticated, foreign disruptive agents’ access to the White House, by rejecting “abnormal” bids, is a New York art dealer named Georges Bergès. He seems reputable enough, right?
Hunter serves this government in no capacity, official or otherwise, and has no ability to "sell influence".
Ironically, anyone dealing with Hunter is black listed from the White House, as being around that loser is a red flag that slams doors shut in your face.
Which of course is far different than say over 20 different foreign governments renting hotel rooms (that they don't show up for, just to transfer funds) from the President's son, who dutifully reports back to the White House to help set access to the President himself...
This false equivalence is an extremely powerful tool to control people.
I don't much care about a massive nothing like Hunter Biden. Really. Who does? Anyone who doesn't know and love him personally?
Well people care enough to buy his art for big money which is only the case because of the power of his father. Without his powerful father he doesn't make $5. He's no artist is about the most uncontroversial statement imaginable. Very shady Ukrainian business interests were paying him how much a month for his "business expertise?" More than the annual minimum wage? For no duties? Can you get that job? Can I? Can he if his father is Joe Average? Can he if his father is Michael Jordan, or Robin Williams, or Matthew McConnaughey, or Richard Feynman, or any other superstar achiever who isn't politically powerful with duties involving the Ukraine? Does Joe Biden exercise political actions for money or the money that Hunter gets? I actually strongly doubt it. But I'm only 99.8% sure of that. Does it compromise Joe anyway? Yeah, it looks terrible!
It looks terrible because it is terrible. Claiming Ivanka is worse has just gotta stop. Ivanka is irrelevant.
Claming Hunter is worse than Ivanka if you swing that way has just gotta stop. Hunter is irrelevant.
They both meet the threshold to turn your stomach. Regardless if you love the Don or love the Joe or love both (and seriously, good for you if you do. Things are better if you can bring yourself to like both candidates - I'd like to get there too).
Hunter and Ivanka both stink to high heaven. It is of zero consequence who is "worse" they both limbo effortlessly under any bar of decency. They are both shining, sparkling advertisements with fireworks to kids from disadvantaged backgrounds that nobody cares about "merit" or "cleverness" or "honesty" or "hard work" and that you, kid, were not born to succeed like they were and have through nothing more than ... Fill in your own ideas for what personal attributes comprise their financial success.
If only one of those two turns your stomach you have drunk some partisan kool-aid. The benchmark for the actions of the US president and direct family members has to be higher than "Not actually illegal" Whoever the president may be.
If we have a partisan preference maybe we should work out in advance what evidence would turn us against them. What would be bad enough that we might not support them anymore. So if it should happen we're mentally prepared to turn on them so there's some chance of consequences.
Both of Ivanka and Hunter will be fine. The prospect of consequences for them or the political fortunes of their family members are so far below what would be a good thing their story is only illustrative of how bad and endemic the corruption has become.
But yeah you saw those evil gnomes at Fox/MSNBC are rallying around Rachel/Tucker because, that side is so EVIL ... Delete as applicable. As awful as all that is it's actually less depressing than the reality of it all.
I refuse to fall into the low-IQ cynicism of both-side-isms.
It's worse for a public servant, with actual influence and power, to be corrupt, than it is for a child of a politician to make money.
Yes, Hunter is irrelevant because he's not in our government.
NO, Ivanka was not irrelevant, because she was a member of our government elevated to have power in our country.
These differences fundamentally matter. And no amount of both-sides-ism or false equivalence will change the reality that public servants must be held to a higher standard than children of politicians.
It is not "partisan kool-aid" to hold public servants to a higher standard than private children, and to suggest otherwise is ignorant and immoral.
