Joe Biden, the sitting president, has clarified the reasoning behind his decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden, through a prepared declaration. This move has raised eyebrows considering Biden was consistent in his proclamation that he would maintain a hands-off approach concerning the Justice Department’s decisions. Unfortunately, reality paints a different picture as he seems to have intervened out of parental sentimentality instead of a commitment to justice.
A major point in his defense centers on the perceived unjust attention Hunter’s case has been granted. According to him, persons found guilty of the same or similar offenses are usually not dragged to court, particularly if the offenses do not involve committing heinous crimes or making multiple purchases. Such individuals, especially those unable to meet tax obligations due to serious personal challenges but eventually resolving their tax debts, are often given non-criminal resolutions. Apparently, the rule didn’t apply to his son.
Biden would want us to believe that Hunter’s unique treatment is strictly a result of excessive focus on him because of his position as the President’s son. This claim conveniently omits to acknowledge that the charges leveled at Hunter emerged after several political rivals expressed concerns about Joe Biden’s potential improprieties. Those opponents from the Congress utilized the judicial process to bring an inherent element of fairness and accountability to the picture.
Furthermore, a supposedly well-crafted plea deal backed by the Department of Justice, which signaled a resolution to Hunter’s cases, met its unfortunate fate in the court, crumbled to pieces. Intriguingly, political adversaries of the President are held responsible for the collapse and are seen as wielding undue influence over the process. But one must wonder, wouldn’t it be more credible if the case was evaluated based on its merits rather than political affiliations and personal loyalties?
Biden Junior’s case would have been resolved reasonably and fairly if the initial plea deal had seen the light of day, according to Biden. By underscoring this narrative, is the President admitting that the Justice Department, an entity he vowed not to interfere with, came up with a ‘fair and reasonable’ resolution that didn’t stick?
He continues his narrative, alleging that his son was victimized and targeted solely because of his relationship to him. However, this argument does not consider whether the nature of the allegations warranted such attention. Are we to side blindly with nepotism, forgoing the public’s need for accountability, especially for those in the highest ranks of government?
Hunter Biden’s hardship, painted as an unwarranted consequence of unceasing attacks and selective prosecution, is often cited as evidence for a biased case against him. Allegedly, the young Biden has been sober for more than five years, yet the attempts to ‘break’ him continue. This portrayal might inspire sympathy for some, but it doesn’t necessarily exonerate him from potential accountability.
Dramatically, Biden portrays this ongoing battle as not only an attack on Hunter but also a covert attempt to undermine him, with no conceivable end in sight. The correlation here becomes a convenient deflection instead of a solid argument. While one could argue that the family members of politicians should not bear the brunt of political warfare, it’s important to recognize when personal relations are potentially being used to shield illicit activities.
Choosing to believe Biden’s discourse is indeed a challenge. He asserts he has always upheld a principle of honesty towards the American people during his political career. This is a beautiful sentiment, but it might feel hollow considering the current circumstances.
Always armed with a profound trust in the system, Biden claims to believe that the justice process should not be sullied by political drama. He presents himself as a statesman agonizing over an unfair prosecution, yet it is peculiar that he jumps ahead to pardon his son before the justice system can deliver its verdict. This may indicate a lack of faith in the very system he claims to uphold, or worse, a manipulative use of his presidential power.
According to Biden, the decision was not dragged out gratuitously after being made over the weekend. The immediacy of his decision does raise further questions over the motives behind it, and any rational mind may wonder if this haste belied a fear of what a thoroughly examined and delivered verdict might uncover.
Lastly, Biden attempts to defend his controversial decision by appealing for understanding from the American public on the action taken by a father and President. However, should the two roles, one personal and one public, be so intertwined when it comes to meting out justice? The overshadowing of presidential duty by paternal instinct could set a dangerous precedent in relation to maintaining objectivity and impartial judgment.