My Fox colleague Peter Doocy -- one of the few White House correspondents who has taken the responsibility of an accountability-oriented and adversarial press corps seriously during the Biden administration -- asked the president's chief spokesperson a straightforward question yesterday. The query was presented at the first White House briefing in weeks, during which period the president was mostly away on various vacations. Doocy was following up on this story, which revealed that not only did Hunter Biden become aware of the identity of at least two of the purchasers of his art (he's reportedly been paid at least $1.3 million for his creations), one of them landed a coveted presidential appointment. He asked if the Biden White House could still guarantee that no perks or quid pro quos have been or will be being doled out to the generous benefactors of the president's son. Karine Jean Pierre responded by claiming the inquiry wasn't for her to answer, which is her approach to many questions she doesn't want to deal with:
Doocy: "It's a question of ethics at the White House."
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) August 28, 2023
KJP: "I--I--know--I hear--I hear--I hear--"
Doocy: "We know one of the art buyers got a job from the Biden administration. Can you guarantee...no quid pro quo?"
KJP: "I hear...your question. I'm not going to be involved" pic.twitter.com/OqmYhdJgQk
At the end of the clip, she calls this a matter for "Hunter Biden's representatives." No, it's not. It's a matter for the Biden White House. You know who believes that? The Biden White House:
When asked about potential ethics violations surrounding Hunter Biden's art sales, Jen Psaki says "a system has been established" and "he has the right to pursue an artistic career." pic.twitter.com/Ot0YueKadS
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) July 9, 2021
“After careful consideration, a system has been established to allow Hunter Biden to work in his profession within reasonable safeguards,” press secretary Jen Psaki said at a briefing with reporters. “Of course he has the right to pursue an artistic career, just like any child of a president has the right to pursue a career.” Psaki said a professional gallery owner will set prices on Biden’s artwork and handle all transactions. Any offer above the sales price or deemed suspect will be rejected as part of the arrangement, she said. “I think it would be challenging for an anonymous person who we don’t know and Hunter Biden doesn’t know to have influence. So that’s a protection,” she said when asked whether a private gallery owner might be unfamiliar with individuals seeking to buy Biden’s artwork to curry favor with the administration.
'The gallerist will not share information about buyers or prospective buyers, including their identities, with Hunter Biden or the administration," Psaki asserted in 2021, calling the arrangement "quite a level of protection" against potential influence-peddling. But influence peddling is, of course, the Biden family enrichment scheme's entire business model. And as referenced above, the White House's scrupulous anonymity pledge -- ostensibly designed to 'protect' against corruption -- has been violated on multiple occasions:
On the campaign trail, President Joe Biden pledged that there would be an "absolute wall" between his official duties and his family's private business interests. The Biden White House repeatedly made reference to that wall when responding to questions about the fledgling art career of Hunter Biden, the president's son. In 2021, when a New York art gallery debuted Hunter Biden's paintings with asking prices as high as $500,000, the White House said that Hunter Biden's team had a process for carefully vetting buyers, and that their identities were known only to the gallery, and not to Hunter Biden himself. The messaging seemed to suggest that Hunter Biden's art patrons came from a rarified universe of collectors who had nothing to do with the hurly burly of politics. Neither of those things has turned out to be the case. Hunter Biden did in fact learn the identity of two buyers, according to three people directly familiar with Hunter Biden's own account of his art career. And one of those buyers is indeed someone who got a favor from the Biden White House.
It turns out Hunter knows the identities of at least two of these art buyers, one of whom is his own 'sugar brother' lawyer, who has also "loaned" Hunter millions of dollars to pay back taxes and child support (lots of totally normal stuff happening here), and a woman who has visited the White House more than a dozen times (all after Hunter's art went on sale) -- and who received a prestigious presidential appointment from the administration of Hunter's father. None of the involved parties were willing to answer any questions posed to them about the nature or sequence of these 'coincidental' transactions when Business Insider broke its report. It's unclear who the other buyer or buyers are, whether Hunter Biden is also aware of their identities, or whether they've been granted any special access or privileges by this White House. To state the obvious, people aren't dropping five- or six-figures on the president's troubled son's paintings because he's an artistic savant, or out of the goodness of their hearts.
So no, Karine, this is not an issue for "Hunter Biden's representatives" to address. It's a question for you, the spokeswoman for the President of the United States, to address. Specifically, and in detail. Your predecessor assured the American people that precisely what has happened would not happen, thanks to a 'carefully considered' system of 'safeguards.' The set-up was touted as providing "protection" and "transparency." But the phenomenon to be protected against has now happened, and subsequent stonewalling on the details is the exact opposite of transparency. Reporters sat in that room and listened to Jen Psaki spin her tale of rigorous ethical guardrails. Do they have enough self respect to force Psaki's predecessor to grapple with the unraveling of those promises? Or will they allow Doocy and a handful of other usual suspects to raise the issue, only to be told that the White House Press Secretary won't "be involved" in answering for it, referring it away to others, who also won't comment?
