Hunter Biden’s attorneys appear to be pulling out all the stops in a desperate bid to dismiss the tax evasion case against him. This includes concocting erroneous arguments about the purported illegality of special counsel David Weiss’ appointment to the case, as recently asserted by prosecutors in new court filings. This represents the Biden scion’s fourth effort to derail this legal action by questioning the legitimacy and funding of Weiss – a curious strategy if the allegations do not hold water.
The allegations against Hunter include his failure to pay a staggering $1.4 million in taxes to the IRS. While most American citizens understand and uphold their legal and moral duty to contribute to society’s common pool of resources via tax payments, it seems Hunter has fallen short. His refusal to own up to such a crucial obligation serves not only to devalue American taxation norms, but further tarnishes the reputation of the Biden family.
In an effort to negate charges against him, Hunter’s legal team is claiming that Weiss’ appointment and the financing of the pursuit against him is unconstitutional. However, these arguments are brushed off by Weiss’ office as fabricated reasons conveniently invented to evade the charges. This raises questions about the integrity of a legal team who, instead of defending their client on the charges, resort to discrediting the appointment of a special counsel.
Further adding to the complexity of these legal maneuvers, Hunter’s attorneys are sliding into semantics – claiming they merely misused one word, ‘charges,’ when they should have written ‘indictments’ – in an attempt to uphold their arguments. Sounds like rather thin ice to tread upon, given the severity of the case at hand. How long can the constant wrangling on language semantics keep up before the reality of the situation sets in?
In another damning claim, Hunter’s defense paints a picture of Weiss opportunistically pursuing a case against him only post his elevation from the Delaware US attorney to special counsel. Weiss’ office, however, promptly dismissed this as patently incorrect. Such attempts to undermine the character of the opposition instead of providing substantial defense evidence are indeed questionable. Is this a classic deflection strategy or a legitimate critique of the prosecution?
It is worth noting that Weiss first lodged charges when he was a US attorney for Delaware in a case where Hunter intended to plead guilty. However, this case went awry in court, and instead of accepting responsibility, the President’s son seems to have used this incident to spin a web of false allegations around Weiss and his appointment. The convoluted sets of accusations only serve to muddy the waters.
Hunter is slated to sit in the defendant’s seat in a tax case this September. Interestingly, he was also convicted in Delaware in June for unlawful possession of a firearm while battling a drug addiction. And true to form, Hunter is attempting to overturn this verdict too. By employing the same old argument that Weiss’ appointment was supposedly illegal, he is essentially in a loop of peddling the same narrative over and over.
Judge Mark Scarsi, last week, even threatened sanctions against Hunter’s legal team for what he deemed were outright lies in court papers. In spite of Scarsi dismissing three previous attempts to discard the case, Hunter’s counsel launched yet another attempt days after a federal documents case against Donald Trump was dismissed in Florida due to the improper appointment of special counsel Jack Smith.
However, the glaring factor that Hunter’s team conveniently glossed over in their allegations was the stark difference between Smith’s and Weiss’ appointments. Smith was appointed by Merrick Garland, the US Attorney General, without Congressional confirmation. On the other hand, Weiss was endorsed by the legislature into his role as a US attorney for Delaware before being promoted to the position of special counsel.
Hunter’s lawyers seemed eager to capitalize on the dismissal of Trump’s case, hoping the same rationale could be applied for their client. However, the significant difference in both circumstances highlights an attempt on their part to mislead rather than address the charges against Hunter directly.
This latest flare-up in the ongoing saga of the Biden family presents an intriguing yet troubling situation. Here we have Hunter Biden, son of the sitting President, engaged in continual efforts to challenge due legal processes and evade justified prosecution for serious charges.
An interesting trend continues: When faced with undeniable evidence or lack of a convincing defense, the approach appears to be to cleverly divert attention to the legitimacy of appointments rather than addressing the crux of the issue. There’s an old saying – ‘if you can’t baffle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bull.’
Further developments in this saga will be interesting to observe as the matter continues to unfold. Whether the series of maneuvers by Hunter and his team will result in the dismissal of his case, or his calculated ploys will unravel under the lens of thorough evaluation, remains to be seen. After all, in the court of law, it’s not about who shouts the loudest, but who stands up to the scrutiny of truth.