Tuesday, January 16, 2024

Hunter Biden - Poster Boy for (D) White House Ethics...

Jonathan Turley, "Art Dealer Testifies Hunter Wanted Buyer Info"
More details are emerging from the recent testimony of Hunter Biden’s art dealer, George Bergès. We previously discussed how Bergès confirmed that the accounts of buyers flocking to buy Hunter’s art was false and that most of the art was purchased by his Democratic donor patron, Kevin Morris. Not only did Bergès shatter White House claims of a carefully constructed ethical system to keep Hunter from knowing the identity of purchasers, Bergès testified that Hunter expressly demanded to know the identity.

Various experts objected to the sales as a serious ethical problem of donors using the purchases to assist President Biden and his family.

The media dutifully reported at the time how the White House was grappling with the ethical questions and, according to the Washington Post, “the White House officials have helped craft an agreement.” It was portrayed as unprecedented and unyielding.

The White House continued to swat down questions by citing an ethical plan created for the sales. Andrew Bates, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement that “the President has established the highest ethical standards of any administration in American history, and his family’s commitment to rigorous processes like this is a prime example.”

Then White House spokesperson (and now MSNBC host) Jennifer Psaki stated:
“Well, I can tell you that after careful consideration, a system has been established that allows for Hunter Biden to work in his profession within reasonable safeguards […] But all interactions regarding the selling of art and the setting of prices will be handled by a professional gallerist, adhering to the highest industry standards. And any offer out of the normal course would be rejected out of hand. And 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.”
Yet, Bergès reportedly testified that he had no contacts with the White House and Hunter knew the identity of the purchasers of most of the art. Notably, Bergès was reading these same reports in the news but never objected to the alleged misrepresentation. He admitted that he read of those reports and was confused.

A staffer asked: “When you’re seeing in the press that the White House is putting in certain safeguards regarding an ethics agreement but you’ve had no conversations with [the] White House, I mean, did you ever say to Hunter Biden, ‘Hey, where’s this coming from?’”

Bergès responded: “I might have. I probably did, yeah.” He admitted that he was surprised by the coverage “[b]ecause I hadn’t had any communication with the White House about an agreement.” That, of course, was never reported. Instead, the media dutifully reported how there was this comprehensive ethical plan in place.

What was particularly notable is that, despite the false White House claims and extensive coverage, Hunter appears to have discarded any such limits. Berges testified that artists usually do not know who buys their art. So not only did Hunter not comply with the agreement with the first, this was a departure from standard operating procedure to let him know about the purchasers: “…I don’t know how it was phrased or—but I remember that there—that that was the difference…That part was different. Normally, the gallerist does not let the artist know who the collectors are…The first one was that I was required to disclose who the buyers were. In the second one, I was required to not disclose the buyers.”

The most important testimony, in my view, is still the massive purchase by Morris. This Democratic donor was introduced to Hunter at a Democratic fundraiser for the first time not long before reportedly giving him millions to pay off his taxes and support his lavish lifestyle. He then reportedly purchased most of the art as the media was reporting how hot Hunter was as a new emerging artist. The claims of walling off the identity of purchasers and the high demand for his art proved to be false.

For his part, Bergès says that he no longer carries Hunter’s art. He did confirm that he previously did speak with President Biden in person and on the phone during the period when he was selling his son’s art.

The media, however, now appears to be, again, largely ignoring the story and what it says about not just the ethical questions but its own prior coverage.
John Solomon, "Art dealer told Congress that Joe Biden called and met him while he sold Hunter Biden’s paintings"
George Berges also says first son made unusual request to know the identity of buyers, undercutting White House's narrative.

The art dealer who sold Hunter Biden’s paintings told Congress that President Joe Biden both called and met him at the White House as he was pitching Hunter's artwork and that the first son also made an unusual request to be informed about who bought his pieces, according to testimony that directly undercuts the White House narrative on the sales.

The Biden White House repeatedly told the public that Hunter Biden’s art sales were covered by an ethics agreement to ensure they were arms-length and that the first family -- Hunter included -- was blinded to the identity of buyers.

But George Berges, owner of the prestigious Berges art galleries based in New York and Berlin that sold Hunter Biden’s painting from 2020 to 2023, told congressional impeachment investigators that the first son likely knew the identity of 70% of the buyers – the largest who were Democrat donors – and that Hunter Biden’s first contract made an unusual request when the relationship started.

“I believe in the first contract, he was—he was able to know who the buyers were,” Berges told investigators for the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees in a transcribed interview last week that was reviewed by Just the News. “…I don’t know how it was phrased or—but I remember that there—that that was the difference.”

“Is that normal or unusual, or where’s that? Is it a normal kind of contract?” Berges was asked.

“That part was different. Normally, the gallerist does not let the artist know who the collectors are,” the art dealer answered.

Berges said a subsequent art sale deal with the first son dropped the requirement for Hunter Biden to be informed. “The first one was that I was required to disclose who the buyers were. In the second one, I was required to not disclose the buyers,” he explained.

Berges was also asked how many of the 15 artists he represents now – except for Hunter Biden – wanted to know the identity of purchasers. “None,” he answered.

Berges also revealed that he no longer represents Hunter Biden for art sales, saying the commercial relationship ended last fall. “I haven't represented him for four months now, and I think that also says something,” Berges said. “And I still talk to him as a friend.” Hunter Biden is still listed on Berges' website.

Not only did Hunter Biden know many of the buyers, Joe Biden apparently knew about the gallery selling Hunter Biden’s art and had two contacts with Berges, according to the testimony.

“Have you spoken to President Biden?” a House investigator asked at one point.
“Yes,” Berges answered.

“Okay. And was that in person or on the phone or both?” the investigator pressed.
“Both,” he answered.

“Can you tell me about the in-person meeting, where that was, when that was?” the questioner inquired. “At the White House wedding during Hunter's - Hunter's daughter getting married,” the art dealer explained.

“Okay. And then on the phone?” the congressional investigator asked.

“My daughter finished camp and he called to, you know, wish her, congratulate her for finishing camp and I answered the phone,” he said.

Berges’ account mirrors that of an earlier Hunter Biden business partner, Devon Archer, who gave explosive testimony to Congress last summer revealing that Joe Biden as vice president got on about two dozen calls with his son’s foreign business associates and had at least two dinners with them. The president had denied any contact with Hunter Biden associates.

Berges’ testimony also confirmed earlier reporting by Just the News, including that:
Hollywood superlawyer and Democrat donor Kevin Morris bought some of Hunter Biden’s art work: Berges put the total at at least $875,000; 
Democrat donor Elizbeth Naftali, who Joe Biden appointed to a federal commission, bought art work as well. Berges said she bought bought one painting before her federal appointment and one after her appointment; 
Joe Biden fundraiser Lanette Phillips made the connection between Hunter Biden and Berges that led to the art sales deal; 
Berges sold his first piece of art for the first son in December 2020, just before Joe Biden took office; and 
Berges had two art sales agreements with Hunter Biden, one in 2020 and another about a year later. 
But the art dealer’s most consequential testimony for the impeachment proceeding involved Joe Biden and his White House. Berges said in addition to meeting and talking with the president while helping Hunter Biden, he had never had any contact with the White House over the supposed ethics agreement.
“When you’re seeing in the press that the White House is putting in certain safeguards regarding an ethics agreement but you’ve had no conversations with [the] White House, I mean, did you ever say to Hunter Biden, ‘Hey, where’s this coming from?’” a congressional investigator asked. “I might have. I probably did, yeah,” Berges said.

“And do you remember what he said to you?" the investigator continued. “I don’t . . . . I do remember being surprised,” Berges explained.

“Why were you surprised?” he was asked. “Because I hadn’t had any communication with the White House about an agreement,” Berges answered.

30 comments:

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...


Joe C. and the other righties continue to fire their bullets of ignorance at anything that questions their deluded beliefs. Unfortunatly for them it's the only ammo they have. William Buckley started that nonsense type of argument but he never really became a right wing hero as he had an Ivy League accent that made him sound like a pansy. Poor Joe C. will shoot his blanks of misleads and whatabouts in hopes newsmax or fox give him a show. It' won't happen JoeC. But if continuing to be a pawn for the right gives you hope who am I to deny you that?

Joe Conservative said...

Joe Kelly obviously wasted his tuition taking "Truth 101"... for we can see that he learned nothing by ad hominem.

Anonymous said...

I think it's some imbecilic CopyCat -- just copyed and pasted it here...

That Joe, though Coward... do not look as one who'd do such self-plagiatry.

Yawn.

But I will not hold my breath to know that I am not true here... ;-))))


About post itself -- Just Hillarious... or, maybe I should say KILLarious. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Joe Conservative said...

Yes, he's one of pShaw's brainless toadies.

Rattrapper said...

It's another one of Dervish's aliases.

Rattrapper said...

Q, Dervish farted!😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

Anonymous said...

Like something new...

Yawn.

Do you think it's possible to talk NewSpeak any other way other then with its lower mouth, ah, Rat? ;-)

Dervish Sanders said...

No.

Anonymous said...

Yeah... and swift CONFIRMATION... from lower mouth of a NewSpeaker. :-)))))))))))))))))))))

Anonymous said...

Yawn.

Dervish Sanders said...

Qtard: Yeah... and swift CONFIRMATION...

So your delusions tell you. Yawn... Definitely.

Anonymous said...

That is established FACT -- that imbecile OFTENLY babbling "No" instead of "Yes"... in NewSpeak way.

Same... as it trying to call "facts" -- "delusions". ;-P

But.

Continue-continue. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Anonymous said...

\\Definitely.

Naturally. Imbecile UNABLE to understand, that it doesn't matter how many times it will repeat words like "definitely" and etc -- it will not change that conclusion of much smarter opponent -- because that conclusion -- BASED ON FACTS. ;-P

But.

Continue-continue. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Anonymous said...

Oops, wrong site. Too many brain dead MAGA around.

Anonymous said...

:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Joe Conservative said...

Market Stalinism...

“The idealized market was supposed to deliver ‘friction free’ exchanges, in which the desires of consumers would be met directly, without the need for intervention or mediation by regulatory agencies. Yet the drive to assess the performance of workers and to measure forms of labor which, by their nature, are resistant to quantification, has inevitably required additional layers of management and bureaucracy. What we have is not a direct comparison of workers’ performance or output, but a comparison between the audited representation of that performance and output. Inevitably, a short-circuiting occurs, and work becomes geared towards the generation and massaging of representations rather than to the official goals of the work itself. Indeed, an anthropological study of local government in Britain argues that ‘More effort goes into ensuring that a local authority’s services are represented correctly than goes into actually improving those services’. This reversal of priorities is one of the hallmarks of a system which can be characterized without hyperbole as ‘market Stalinism’. What late capitalism repeats from Stalinism is just this valuing of symbols of achievement over actual achievement.
[…]
It would be a mistake to regard this market Stalinism as some deviation from the ‘true spirit’ of capitalism. On the contrary, it would be better to say that an essential dimension of Stalinism was inhibited by its association with a social project like socialism and can only emerge in a late capitalist culture in which images acquire an autonomous force. The way value is generated on the stock exchange depends of course less on what a company ‘really does’, and more on perceptions of, and beliefs about, its (future) performance. In capitalism, that is to say, all that is solid melts into PR, and late capitalism is defined at least as much by this ubiquitous tendency towards PR-production as it is by the imposition of market mechanisms.”

― Mark Fisher, "Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?"

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Qtrd: That is established FACT -- that imbecile OFTENLY babbling "No" instead of "Yes"... in NewSpeak way.

You babble no when you mean yes? In a "NewSpeak way"? If you say so. I dunno. I don't recall you answering only NO. I've done that, but when I write "no" (or yes) it is because I mean "no" (or yes). There is zero NewSpeaking going on. I don't use NewSpeak.

It is an established fact that Qtard frequently babbles "NewSpeak" and then says I meant the opposite of what I wrote. Either I wrote No and meant Yes. Or I wrote Yes and meant No. According to the imbecile.

Qtard: Same... as it trying to call "facts" -- "delusions".

Who? You? You keep talking about an "it". I know I am not an "it", so you must mean yourself. That is OK with me if you want to identify as "it" instead of "he" or "she".

Qtard believes it is a "fact" that I posted as "Joe Truth 101 Kelly"? What is your evidence to support this allegation, dumbshit? Well, it isn't an allegation, but something Qtard says is a "fact". Yet more evidence that Qtard has no idea what a fact is.

Idiot says I "swiftly confirmed" it was me by saying it was not. Yet me guess... If said nothing I'd be "silently agreeing" it was me. If I said it was me -- that would definitely be an admission. Instead of a "NewSpeak no". So, no matter what, I'm "confirming" your delusions. I wouldn't expect anything else from a mentally ill nutter like yourself.

Qtard: But. Continue-continue.

Self encouragement. As if it is needed. Everyone knows you will continue with your mentally ill false "NewSpeak" allegations. When I've never used NewSpeak and never will.

Anonymous said...

\\Blogger Joe Conservative said...

\\ Market Stalinism...

:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0



\\Blogger Dervish Sanders said...
\\I don't recall you answering only NO. I've done that

Admission! Admission! Admission!



\\but when I write "no" (or yes) it is because I mean "no" (or yes)

This claim... do not corroborates with FACTS.

Well... no, it corroborates... but in NewSpeak way exactly.

Utterance "NO" happen when FACTS say "YES".

And "YES" happens when FACTS either exactly opposite... or non-existing. ;-P

And FACTS -- are Truth. Because they are parts of Reality. Immediately perceivable.

While words... words... is just... words. Labels... that can be sticked wrongly.
And LIARs like to use that FACT... very much. Claiming "I am truth-teller! ONLY MY words are Truth" and etc.

But.

FACTS do reveal their lies. All of the times.



\\It is an established fact

"Established"? By whom???

By Imbecilic LIAR... VERY CREDIBLE!

Naaah. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



Anonymous said...


Qtard: Admission! Admission! Admission!

Why did you write "admission" three times followed by an exclamation point? As a liar, someone admitting an obvious truth surprises you?

Qtard: This claim... do not corroborates with FACTS.

It does.

Qtard: Well... no, it corroborates... but in NewSpeak way exactly.

No.

Qtard: Utterance "NO" happen when FACTS say "YES".

No.

Qtard: And "YES" happens when FACTS either exactly opposite... or non-existing.

No.

Qtard: And LIARs like to use that FACT... very much. Claiming "I am truth-teller! ONLY MY words are Truth" and etc.

This is your admission (as a liar). Yes?

Qtard: FACTS do reveal their lies. All of the times.

You don't believe that. If you did you wouldn't lie constantly.

Anonymous said...

\\Qtard: This claim... do not corroborates with FACTS.

\\It does.

Then... you must be able to EXPLAIN -- HOW it corroborate. ;-P

But you can't.

Because that is imbecilic lie of horrendous imbecile -- that only can cry "NO"... and even ADMIT that it only can cry "NO"...

but, never the less, can only CONTINUE cry "NO"...

while claiming that it didn't. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



\\Qtard: Well... no, it corroborates... but in NewSpeak way exactly.

\\No.

YET ONE time.


\\Qtard: Utterance "NO" happen when FACTS say "YES".

\\No.

YET ONE time.



\\Qtard: And "YES" happens when FACTS either exactly opposite... or non-existing.

\\No.

YET ONE time.


:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



\\This is your admission (as a liar). Yes?

Yeah?

And you can CONFIRM this with FACTS/QUOTES???

Naaah.

Cause that was just as always -- just an imbecilic lie, of horrendous imbecile.





\\Qtard: FACTS do reveal their lies. All of the times.

\\You don't believe that. If you did you wouldn't lie constantly.

Obvious use of "you" instead of "I".

Yawn.

Dervish Sanders said...

Qtard: Then... you must be able to EXPLAIN -- HOW it corroborate. But you can't.

YOU can't. Qtard makes a claim. I say, what is the evidence? Then Qtard screeches, "no, you give evidence". Repeat over and over.

Qtard: Because that is imbecilic lie of horrendous imbecile -- that only can cry "NO"... and even ADMIT that it only can cry "NO"...

Lie. I never admitted that.

Qtard: but, never the less, can only CONTINUE cry "NO"...

Lie.

Qtard: while claiming that it didn't.

Because I have given longer explanations many times.

Qtard: Well... no, it corroborates... but in NewSpeak way exactly\\ No\\ YET ONE time.

Yeah. ONE time. Not every time.

Qtard: Utterance "NO" happen when FACTS say "YES"\\ No\\ YET ONE time.

One time telling the truth? No, I tell the truth every time.

Qtard: And "YES" happens when FACTS either exactly opposite... or non-existing\\ No\\ YET ONE time.

Yeah. ONE time. Not every time.

Qtard: \\This is your admission (as a liar). Yes?\\Yeah? And you can CONFIRM this with FACTS/QUOTES???

You confirmed with facts and quotes your BS NewSpeak allegations against me? I see no facts. And I only see quotes not proving what you say they do.

Qtard: Cause that was just as always -- just an imbecilic lie, of horrendous imbecile.

Yeah, you.

Qtard: FACTS do reveal their lies. All of the times\\ you don't believe that. If you did you wouldn't lie constantly\\ Obvious use of "you" instead of "I".

Obvious use of "you" when "you" was intended.

Anonymous said...

\\Qtard: Then... you must be able to EXPLAIN -- HOW it corroborate. But you can't.

\\YOU can't.

Who "YOU"??? :-))))))))))))))))0

Your alter-ego "Qtard"? ;-P

I SEE... from explanation you provided...


\\Qtard makes a claim. I say, what is the evidence? Then Qtard screeches, "no, you give evidence". Repeat over and over.

Yeah.

That nasty-nasty "Qtard". :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Which dare to post under nicjname Derpish Sadners here. :-))))))))))))))))))))

:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



\\Qtard: Because that is imbecilic lie of horrendous imbecile -- that only can cry "NO"... and even ADMIT that it only can cry "NO"...

\\Lie. I never admitted that.

\\Blogger Dervish Sanders said...
\\I don't recall you answering only NO. I've done that

:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Yeah... imbecile. You making me closer and closer -- to admitting you being cretin.

Good to go.

Continue-continue. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))



\\Because I have given longer explanations many times.

Yeah.

I deem your explanation is very credible. And definite. ;-P

\\Blogger Dervish Sanders said...
\\I don't recall you answering only NO. I've done that



\\One time telling the truth? No, I tell the truth every time.

Yap.

In NewSpeak.

Where... as we all know... "Truth it's a lie". ;-P



\\You confirmed with facts and quotes your BS NewSpeak allegations against me? I see no facts. And I only see quotes not proving what you say they do.

Yawn.

Just ABOVE ^^^^^^^


\\Obvious use of "you" when "you" was intended.

And you just asked -- "and where I use NewSpeak"???

Just now. In this sentence.

Obvious use of NewSpeak -- counter-factual try to throw aside FACTS/QUOTES of much smarter opponent -- and trying to accuse truth-telling being lies...

Anonymous said...


Newspeak | Doublethink, Thoughtcrime, Big Brother
Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ...
newspeak, propagandistic language that is characterized by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings.

Dervish Sanders said...

What an imbecilic liar. Trying to say my "I've done that" is a confirmation of it's LIE "that it only can cry NO".

Imbecile thinks that, because it bolded my words, that makes its lies about my words true. And it thinks it can get away with these lies because it is an IMBECILE.

Qtard: ...inversion of customary meanings.

Yeah, now you're trying to change the meaning of "only". When anyone can see I've replied with longer answers than "no" or "yes". And not ONLY replied "no" or "yes".

Such an obvious lie. But the imbecile will continue to repeat it anyway.

Anonymous said...

\\ Dervish Sanders said...

\\ What an imbecilic liar. Trying to say my "I've done that" is a confirmation of it's LIE "that it only can cry NO".

Thank you! :-))))))))))))))))))))))))

Now I have CONFIRMATION of your C-R-E-T-I-N-I-S-M, you -- cretin.

Quote was

\\Blogger Dervish Sanders said...
\\I don't recall you answering only NO. I've done that

And that "only NO" OBVIOUSLY relates to "I've done that". ;-P

But.

Now you are free to claim that "it is a lie, my cretin's words means something else" -- cause it is NATURAL... for cretin -- to NOT be able to make its words to MEAN what it wants, or just mean anything. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))00

Cause... it is... cretin.

Well... for at least. You spared itself from being liar... this way. Or no? And IT, will demonstrate... some CRETINIC lie NOW. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



Dervish Sanders said...

"I don't recall you answering only NO. I've done that..."

I meant to any single question. I don't recall you answering "no" to a single question while I have done that.

I did not mean I only ever write "no". Take a look at my prior comments. Obviously they contain words other than "no".

Or can you not read?

You wrote: "...that only can cry "NO"... and even ADMIT that it only can cry "NO"...

How can I admit something that is obviously false?

According to you, I say "I never said it" a lot. NONE of those words are "no".

Is "I" no?

Is "never" no?

Is "said" no?

Is "it" no?

You think all those words are "no"?

Anonymous said...

\\ Dervish Sanders said...

\\ "I don't recall you answering only NO. I've done that..."

\\ I meant to any single question.

Who cares??? What you meant, ah, cretin?

Not me. Not Joe. Nobody cares... what your sore mentally impaired brain produceing as inner feelings of what cretin thinks it "meant". ;-P

Only YOUR words -- are FACTS. Not your thoughts... hidden inside your rotten from inside scull. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

And you -- cretin. UNABLE to thunk your words into something truthful (based on facts truth), or even intelligible.

And that is ONLY thing ENOUGH for anybody here, or elsewhere. :-))))))))))))))))))))))

But.

Continue-continue, cretin. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))



\\I did not mean I only ever write "no". Take a look at my prior comments. Obviously they contain words other than "no".

Of course.

Cretin CANNOT grok it... that it lost.

It bent only on continuing confirming being cretin.

Continue-continue, cretin. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))




\\You wrote: "...that only can cry "NO"... and even ADMIT that it only can cry "NO"...

\\How can I admit something that is obviously false?

Yup.

Cause you NEVER have written "No" responses. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Observing your cretinism... it's so spectacular. :-)))))))))))))))))))))

But.

Continue-continue, cretin. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))




Anonymous said...

\\You think all those words are "no"?

You -- cretin, thinking that is sound argument??? :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Obviously you are. Cause you are cretin.

But.

Continue-continue, cretin. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Dervish Sanders said...

Qtard: You -- cretin, thinking that is sound argument???

The cretin is asking itself? Well, even though you didn't ask me, I will say, yes, that is a sound argument. The cretin likely disagrees. After all, I did "confirm" that I only say "no".

I dunno how the imbecile can make sense of anything I say, given that it only sees "no" written over and over.

Anonymous said...

:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Continue-continue, cretin. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))