A federal judge, disregarding due process, threw out the firearm case against Hunter Biden. This occurred in the wake of a pardon bestowed by his father, President Joe Biden, effectively sparing his son from the rule of law’s full force. In what should have been a sentencing hearing next week, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika atypically chose to prematurely shut the case.
The prospect of a 25-year prison stint was looming over Biden, although his standing as a first-time perpetrator supposedly made him a candidate for leniency. Nevertheless, several prosecutors protested against the summary dismissal, contending in court documents that a presidential pardon does not warrant the complete expungement of the case from the judicial record.
The allegations against Hunter revolved around his falsified declaration on a federal form in 2018. Amidst his well-known battle with drug abuse, he audaciously claimed to be non-dependent on drugs while purchasing a firearm in Delaware. His denial on the form constituted triple felony charges.
Another case running concurrently in California amplifies the legal woes of Biden. The case filed by the Justice Department special counsel alleges evasion of a significant amount in tax obligations—to the tune of $1.4 million. However, this mired situation for Biden continues to hang in the balance as a federal judge in Los Angeles continues to withhold judgment.
Biden was the beneficiary of a presidential pardon, thanks to his father, President Biden. This paternal intervention showcased a stark contrast to the President’s prior claim of non-interference in Justice Department proceedings. Even so, he proceeded to declare his son the victim of selective prosecution, unjust and prejudiced.
The senior Biden insinuated that the charges presented against his son were, in essence, victimization simply due to his family’s prominence. His one-sided viewpoint blatantly contradicted the universally accepted practice of scrutinizing firearm form misrepresentations. In reality, such malpractices are hardly ever overlooked, specifically when it’s unaccompanied by aggravating factors such as crime involvement, recurrent purchases, or acting as a straw purchaser.
The president’s press release included an audacious declaration about the selective scrutiny of Hunter due to his position as the president’s son. This bold statement carried an inherent contradiction, suggesting that, by some skewed logic, his child should be immune from prosecution that ordinary citizens routinely face.
He also attempted to portray Hunter as the victim of an attempt to ‘break him’, attributing Hunter’s five and a half years of sobriety to his suppressing the urge to indulge, despite the relentless attacks and selective legal action. His defiant remarks revealed a slight paranoia, insinuating an imminent, unfounded threat to himself through his son.
Biden’s actions and statements starkly contrasted his previous declaration in June, when the Delaware gun case was underway, he proudly stated he would respect the jury’s decision and declined to pardon his son. His dramatic about-face has however left scratches on his public standing, calling attention to his inconsistency.
Numerous Democrats, somewhat surprisingly, have squarely criticized these developments. The strategic discussions swirling among them about addressing the impending Trump administration are now being compounded by this latest Biden controversy.
This questionable decision could likely blemish Biden’s legacy. Its delivery on the cusp of his exit from office on January 20 has already cast doubts on his commitment to the principles he has publicly supported. The fallout of these developments remain to be seen.
In fact, Biden’s decision to intercede has consequently raised many eyebrows, primarily amongst his party members. Making such a move, spurring disapproval and criticism within one’s own party, creates self-inflicted hurdles for any post-presidential endeavors Biden might pursue.
Given these ambiguities and inconsistencies, it is apparent that the Biden administration’s actions are more in line with self-interest and protectionism rather than fair governance and justice. Time will tell whether such manoeuvres will leave an indelible mark on Biden’s presidency, where apparent inclinations suggest that such might indeed be the case.