Hunter Biden's plea deal
No one should be surprised that the Washington Post’s editors consider Hunter Biden’s plea deal “justified.” But I was a little surprised by just how superficial the Post’s reasoning is.
The editors lead off by emphasizing that David Weiss, the prosecutor in the case, was appointed U.S. attorney by Donald Trump. But U.S. attorneys normally fly under the radar of the president who, nominally, appoints them. There’s no reason to believe Trump had anything to do with the appointment of Weiss.
Moreover, Weiss served as acting U.S. attorney for two years under Barack Obama. And his current bosses are Joe Biden and Merrick Garland, not Trump or anyone associated with the former president.
None of this means that Weiss is biased in favor of Hunter Biden. But the fact that Trump appointed him provides no assurance that he isn’t biased, and certainly no assurance that he made a fair decision in this case.
Whether the decision in this case is fair depends on how others in positions similar to Hunter Biden have been treated. The problem is that the combination of crimes Biden committed is unique. How many miscreants have been charged at the same time with tax evasion and a federal gun offense? Few, if any, I imagine.
The Post’s editors assert, nonetheless, that “the [plea deal] outcome appears similar to what other defendants have gotten for similar violations of the law.” But their editorial offers no evidence to support this statement.
In response to the fact that Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen were sentenced to prison time for tax evasion, the editors note that “each faced additional aggravating charges as well.” But so does Biden — not additional tax related charges, but a gun crime. The Biden administration claims to take gun crimes very seriously.
The Post cites “experts” who say that it’s rare for federal prosecutors to pursue an illegal-gun possession charge in a case like [Hunter Biden’s] unless it’s in connection with a violent crime. “ But what about when it’s coupled with tax evasion?
In Virginia, the mother of a six-year old who shot his teacher will be sentenced to prison time — 18 to 24 months, according to the plea deal — for possessing a gun while being a user of marijuana. That offense is similar to Biden’s gun offense, except that Biden was a user of cocaine.
The gun the Virginia mom owned was used in a shooting — that of her son’s teacher. But it wasn’t used by the mom to commit a violent offense. And Biden’s gun was found near a school.
The Virginia mom was also charged with child neglect. Biden was also charged with tax evasion. It’s not clear to me why, if the mom serves prison time, Biden should serve none.
There’s also the case of hip-hopper Kodak Black. He was sentenced to three years in prison for the same federal weapons crime as Hunter Biden.
Black had prior convictions for falsifying forms to buy firearms. Biden has none. But again, he failed to pay his taxes. As far as I know, Black was never charged with tax evasion.
The Washington Times points to three additional cases in which defendants served prison time for lying on their application for firearms, as Hunter Biden did.
Brion Martai Odell Hamilton faces up to 10 years in prison for making such false statements. He had been convicted previously of carrying a firearm under the influence of marijuana. That aggravating fact, which isn’t present in Hunter Biden’s case, presumably explains the stiffness of the sentence. But I don’t know that it explains why Biden, who also committed a tax crime, will serve no time.
Amy and Kevin Carwile, who sold firearms, were recently sentenced to three months in prison. They were convicted of making false statements and failing to maintain proper records.
Eddie Wayne Morrison was sentenced to time served of 16 months for making a false statement while purchasing a firearm. Morrison had been deemed incompetent by a court and was subject to a protective order.
While these cases aren’t exactly the same as Hunter Biden’s, the sentencing of the Carwiles and Morrison suggests that Biden should have been required to serve some amount of prison time — and would have been were he not the president’s son.
To be sure, there may well be other cases in which ordinary citizens avoided jail time for offenses at least as severe as Hunter Biden’s dual crimes. If so, these cases must be weighed against those I’ve discussed above. There may also be facts not known to me that constitute an innocent explanation for Biden’s lenient treatment.
But there’s at least a prima facie case that Hunter Biden is getting off lightly because he’s Joe Biden’s son. Certainly, the Washington Post has failed to demonstrate otherwise.
As a gun owner who takes the background check law seriously, perhaps foolishly so, I was outraged. Not only was he addicted to crack, in the laptop photos he was fond of brandishing a semi-auto pistol. His sister-in-law/girlfriend obviously didn't trust him with the gun around.
Yet, his dad and his political party run around complaining that the existing background checks aren't rigorous enough, and want to compile a national database of all firearm owners. More than ever, I'm convinced they want to do that so they can figure out who they want to prosecute and who they want to leave alone.
Meanwhile, prosecutors in our cities, especially Chicago, routinely plea down gun charges on illegal possessors, straw buyers, etc., presumably because they don't want to put more young black men in prison. Out of the other side of their mouths, they want to ban various types of guns from sale, punish people who use their guns in self-defense, and pass new restrictions that would instantly criminalize law-abiding owners (e.g., pistol braces).
The issue of firearms control is so fraught with hypocrisy and disingenuousness as it is. This act of leniency is not a slap on the wrist - it's a raised middle finger.
Great post. And the case for sterner treatment of Hunter than his copped pleas is strengthened by evidence that has come to light after the pleas were copped. Whistleblower evidence now suggests the DOJ intentionally let very large Hunter tax liabilities be erased by the statute of limitations, and that Hunter could well be guilty of FARA violations, extortion, influence peddling, money laundering and maybe more. The DOJ has had the Hunter file for over five years, plenty of time to run all these things to earth and press charges as appropriate. These possible crimes obviously demanded investigations that were never pursued. If there had been charges in addition to the tax and gun charges, the additional charges would have required appropriate punishment in their own right and would have been additional crimes that argue for more severe treatment than Hunter got for the gun and tax charges, for he would have had no basis to be charged as a first time felon. Jim Dueholm