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.
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
I think you are ignoring the main reason this deal was completely inappropriate. Hunter Biden was a key principal in the Biden Family Money Making Machine. Can there be a more important question than whether Joe Biden broke the law when his family members acquired millions of dollars under suspicious circumstances? It is or should be the subject of a vigorous investigation. Hunter Biden should have been required to disclose everything he knew about family finances to get any leniency in this case. That’s Prosecutor 101. Now that avenue to the truth is forever closed.
I don't know what the status of the investigation into Biden family corruption is and I don't know what, if anything, Hunter Biden was required to tell the prosecutor about the matter or what his level of cooperation has been.
I wanted to write about what I think I know, not what I'm sure I don't know.
Fair enough and I didn’t mean to sound critical of your piece. Maybe it’s me that’s off base because I haven’t seen what I consider a very important point mentioned by anyone. However, there’s no indication in the plea deal that he was required to cooperate with that investigation and it would be there if there was such a requirement. To me this smacks of the HRC investigation where immunity was handed out like candy and dubious privileges asserted by HRC and her people were acquiesced in by the investigators.
That may, indeed, be what's happening here. We'll see.
And even without reference to possible influence peddling crimes, there's reason to believe Hunter may have gotten a deal an ordinary citizen wouldn't have received, as I discussed in my post.
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
I think you are ignoring the main reason this deal was completely inappropriate. Hunter Biden was a key principal in the Biden Family Money Making Machine. Can there be a more important question than whether Joe Biden broke the law when his family members acquired millions of dollars under suspicious circumstances? It is or should be the subject of a vigorous investigation. Hunter Biden should have been required to disclose everything he knew about family finances to get any leniency in this case. That’s Prosecutor 101. Now that avenue to the truth is forever closed.
I don't know what the status of the investigation into Biden family corruption is and I don't know what, if anything, Hunter Biden was required to tell the prosecutor about the matter or what his level of cooperation has been.
I wanted to write about what I think I know, not what I'm sure I don't know.
Fair enough and I didn’t mean to sound critical of your piece. Maybe it’s me that’s off base because I haven’t seen what I consider a very important point mentioned by anyone. However, there’s no indication in the plea deal that he was required to cooperate with that investigation and it would be there if there was such a requirement. To me this smacks of the HRC investigation where immunity was handed out like candy and dubious privileges asserted by HRC and her people were acquiesced in by the investigators.
That may, indeed, be what's happening here. We'll see.
And even without reference to possible influence peddling crimes, there's reason to believe Hunter may have gotten a deal an ordinary citizen wouldn't have received, as I discussed in my post.
I agree completely. Good stuff.