Hunter Biden Trial

As we await sentencing in the New York Trump election interference trial, Hunter Biden's trial is taking place. 

Slate provides an excellent summary of how different the two trials are. The defense portrays Hunter Biden as a reformed addict who sympathetically got his life back together. His family, including his mother and sister, are supportive. The defense carefully makes a limited argument and handles prosecution witnesses gingerly.  And so on.

We have a more slipshod analysis, including the obligatory Merrick Garland* and Democrat-bashing (it really amounts to a criticism of President Biden, which is just asinine) from the weakest link at another blog. 

I again wonder how Garland was going to get rid of the obviously biased special prosecutor here without looking like a hack in hock to his boss. Democrats have defended Hunter Biden and criticized Republicans who tried to weaponize his case. House Democrats did so when House Republicans had one of their show hearings. 

Yes, laying on the defense too thick probably would be bad politics. But, they are not just letting him swing in the wind. Furthermore, how much more would it help Hunter Biden if they were more vocal? His best bet is either a sympathetic jury or the appeals court overturning a weak case.

[The Slate article notes that a key piece of evidence involves him not disclosing that he is an "addict" on his gun registration form. Aside from the possible Second Amendment concerns here, the "knowingly" intent required is somewhat hard to prove.]  

A typical person would not be prosecuted for the tax and gun crimes involved here. Biden tried to plea out but the whole thing was screwed up by the special prosecutor. The prosecutor appears to have a vendetta against Hunter Biden. The N.Y. case was a more carefully handled affair. 

We do not have the election-related concerns found in the Trump case or the fact that multiple other people involved were prosecuted or obtained non-prosecution agreements. The defendant has not been a criminal all his adult life with multiple serious cases pending. 

The limited overlapping -- including little prosecuted felony charges in the N.Y. case -- details do not make the two cases the same. I hope he either is not found guilty or the appeals court correctly finds multiple things wrong with the conviction. 

Anyway, even though they tried so very hard, Biden critics received little benefit from going after Hunter Biden. The "Biden Crime Family," unlike the actual nefarious acts of Trump and his associates (including members of his family), is just a fantasy. 

Let this peter out as it should. 

ETA: "A federal jury found Hunter Biden guilty on all three federal felony gun charges he faced, concluding that he violated laws meant to prevent drug addicts from owning firearms." 

This judgment is probably fair. My concern is a biased prosecution, which should not have been brought in the first place. 

There is still a possibility of criminal tax charges, which would normally not be brought as long as the money was repaid. 

==

* Garland did begin investigating the January 6th attacks shortly after he came into office. Multiple things held up the investigation, including the FBI and Republican stonewalling. Trump was indicted twice. 

He didn't immediately appoint a special prosecutor since he was not conflicted. Trump running for office was a new development there. Sen. Elizabeth Warren proposed a special investigatory committee. Biden did not. And so on and so on.

Some readers are opposed to this line of scapegoating. They upvoted me when I called it out or spoke against it themselves. I didn't see any doing so on the thread, perhaps because they know how pointless it is at this point.