U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika is not having it, as yesterday’s headlines indicate. The super-lenient “deal” that Hunter Biden’s lawyers made with the Department of Justice to let the president’s son off with barely a scrape stinks.
And she’s not signing off on it.
But there is a hitch, which Reason summarizes in its title to Jacob Sullum’s coverage: “Hunter Biden Shouldn’t Go to Prison for Violating an Arbitrary Gun Law.”
And Sullum is right. Sort of.
And wrong. Really.
The letter of the law that Hunter most definitely ran afoul of is, as Sullum argues, definitely ill-advised and almost certainly unconstitutional. And, to add cream to the jest, had Hunter committed his lying infraction a little later, after his father signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act last year, he would have been in even deeper doo.
“The fact that President Joe Biden stubbornly defends a policy that could put his own son behind bars,” Sullum concludes, “should not blind us to the injustice that would entail.”
True, but it’s not just about gun laws. It’s tax law, too, that Hunter defied.
The real problem, of course, is that Hunter Biden was engaged in an uber-corrupt shake-down operation — with his family, including his father — leveraging his father’s position in government. Letting Hunter off with a wrist-slap onlesser charges, allowing the statute of limitations to expire on various crimes, bestowing wide immunity, also lets President Biden andthe whole crime family off, thereby keeping a lid on a corruption scandal that makes Teapot Dome look like a child’s tea party.
Besides, shouldn’t the children of politicians be prosecuted to the fullest extent of their parents’ laws?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
8 replies on “Not Having It”
I’d hate to be punished for violating laws that my own parents support and would themselves have effected had they had the chance. Those two drink MSNBC straight from the hose, and repeat its talking points each to the other.
Hunter Biden should only be punished for his violations of law in those cases where the law itself is just in general application.
“shouldn’t the children of politicians be prosecuted to the fullest extent of their parents’ laws?”‘
No.
And it’s not anything like a close call.
Crimes that are not crimes — such as avoiding theft of one’s wealth, or possessing the means of self-defense — should not be prosecuted, period, even if someone really, really, really, REALLY wants to “get” the “perpetrator’s” dad.
If Hunter Biden has committed real crimes, throw the book at him. But taking advantage of evil victimless crime laws to damage his father through him is just as evil as anything his father — or he — is accused of.
Power, without abuse, loses its charm. (French symbolist poet, de Roschfeucauld)
Forget the gun laws. One legal expert pointed out that FARA penalties are far more severe and it’s a felony charge. By not accepting the plea agreement, the judge made it possible for prosecutors to bring FARA charges and tax evasion charges (through all the shell companies) against Hunter and maybe even Joe Biden and his brothers.
Yes, Trumps kids should be prosecuted!
If you’re going to try to turn Paul’s proposition against Trump’s children, then you need to point to some law or laws sponsored by Trump which were violated by his children. Otherwise, your comment looks pretty pam-handed.
It’s an America tradition at this point. I agree with Thomas Knapp, “If Hunter Biden has committed real crimes, throw the book at him.”
But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it, of the whole shebang? The establishment doesn’t want to prosecute him for real crimes, since that might take down the ruling party, along with Hunter’s co-conspirator, Joe. So the establishment tried to appease the masses with the appearance of justice.
Which is all the justice the establishment is good at.
There is a reason we call it the Just-Us Department.