by Jeff Childers
The BBC finally got to run the story it impatiently anticipated, as antsy as a ten-year-old boy waiting for his turn to the bathroom. Yesterday, it deployed with great relish its long-written headline, “Analysis: Hunter Biden conviction shatters Trump’s persecution narrative.”
Yesterday, the Delaware jury found Hunter Biden guilty on all three federal gun charges. When buying a small revolver, Hunter failed to check a box on the federal form stating he was addicted to drugs. The jury returned its verdict after less than three hours of deliberation. It marked another historic U.S. conviction, being the very first time any child of a sitting U.S. president has ever been convicted of a felony.
Of course, Hunter is also a historic kind of presidential child, in many different ways, but that’s another story.
The significance of Hunter’s conviction is debatable. Immediately following the verdict, Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt argued, “This trial has been nothing more than a distraction from the real crimes of the Biden Crime Family, which has raked in tens of millions of dollars from China, Russia and Ukraine.”
It might be a legal distraction as well as a political one. Last August, a New Orleans federal court ruled the Constitution protects the Second Amendment rights of drug users. In that case, the Court explained, “our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage.”
To what then does it amount? Predictably, BBC’s ‘analysis’ compared the Hunter and Trump convictions. The government-funded broadcaster first lamely argued Hunter’s conviction proves that blue state juries can be fair:
BBC also blessed the DOJ, absolving it from accusations of political double standards:
Some people wonder why, since Hunter’s attorneys put on almost no defense at all, Hunter didn’t take a plea deal. Unaccountably, Hunter insisted he was innocent, and demanded a jury trial — but then didn’t offer evidence of his innocence. What, exactly, was his strategy?
Those kinds of pointed questions remain unanswered, and unquestioned by corporate media.
In case you were tempted to start wondering about it all, BBC’s analyst labeled all doubts about the Hunter Trial as “bizarre.” Bizarre, even though Joe Biden’s son was only charged with the least criminal conduct that the trial evidence proved, eliding right over the millions Hunter raked in from U.S. enemies. Bizarre, even though Trump was charged with the most criminal conduct prosecutors could dream up, using tortured, novel legal theories.
But the BBC can’t see any difference between the two trials:
What do you think? Is Hunter’s conviction conclusive evidence that “no one is above the law?” Or is Hunter a willing Scapegoat of the Empire, as Representative Greene suggested?
Yesterday, corporate media widely reported that Hunter’s sentencing could take months, because these things take time. But Trump will be sentenced in a few weeks, right before the GOP Convention. Trump’s trial dragged on for weeks; Hunter’s was rammed through in only a few days. Hunter’s charges were routine firearms violations; Trump’s charges were unprecedented creative lawfare based on political conduct in office.
The stark differences continue, through every material point of comparison. But never mind! The differences will fade away into the media’s fog machine of confusion.
Finally, it’s worth considering how Hunter’s prosecution helps slam open wider the Overton Window of political prosecution. Now, presidential family members are also fair game. It won’t be so historic next time when some local prosecutor charges Hunter with felony drug possession or human trafficking.
The debate is just heating up. This morning, commenters argued hotly that the Hunter-Trump Trial debate is a distraction. For example:
Team Biden’s strategy of justifying President Trump’s prosecution by convicting Hunter of a silly firearms form violation may eventually backfire spectacularly. We shall see.
The narrative the left has been gaslighting Americans on for more than 4 years is falling apart. garlands contempt of Congress is for a cover up of the many crimes committed by joe biden.
Hunter’s and Trump’s case are nothing alike. No one had to invent a crime to charge Hunter with. There is no question what his charges were and there was actual evidence. And an eye witness that testified extensively that he, indeed, committed the crime. Himself. His own audio book was the most damning witness.
Politics never came up? What do they think an election is about? The claim in Trump’s election-interfering trial about election interference was that the only reason Trump used his own money to pay for an NDA was to “interfere” with his own election. Or something. A bookkeeping “error” of designating payments to an attorney as “legal expenses” (a misdemeanor at worst) has to be combined with something else to make the misdemeanor a felony. But, we’ve yet to learn what that “something else” is. There was no such confusion in Hunter’s charges. A fraudulent check mark on a federal 4473 form. Was he an addict (he said he was… A LOT) or not? Did he make the check mark (the salesman said he did) or not? No buffet of possible crimes, not mentioned previously (as was the case in Trump’s trial), to choose from.
And then, how did we get to the point of a trial? Well, Trump’s case, we had a DA that pledged to find something somewhere to “get Trump” on. The he went to looking. He found nothing. He looked and looked and looked. The only prospect was a long-shot that others, both federal and state, had concluded was not a crime. But, Alvin the DA says, “F**K it. Let’s try it. All we need is a crooked judge that will go along with it.” No problem; the rotational selection process of designating judges for cases was shining its fortunes on this adventure and chose Juan Merchan, who is also “randomly” selected for other Trump-related trials.
How about Hunter? Well, we almost didn’t get there at all. When his sister-in-law/girlfriend/fellow crack head, Hallie, threw his handgun in a random trash can, Hunter’s USSS detail went to retrieve it. They also went to retrieve the 4473 form, the implications of him purchasing a new firearm being obvious. But the shop owner wouldn’t relinquish it. Had he, there would have been no trial. Likewise, without some courageous FBI and IRS whistleblowers, there would be no tax evasion trial, either. The DoJ was doing all it could to cover all that up and left to die a natural death through statute of limitations expirations, largely succeeding. A plea deal with a footnote that absolved Hunter of all crimes EVER was to be the icing on the cake. Alas. an alert judge and a “what the hell is THIS?” sunk that attempt.
In the end, we don’t know what Hunter’s gambit was. Was he hoping the fix was in and a jury trial in Delaware MIGHT clear him? Or is the plan to levy a semi-harsh penalty on Hunter, claim this PROVES the DoJ is not the corrupt, biased, weaponized political weapon it has every appearance of really being, and then Hunter gets a pardon or commutation from dear old daddy President? What we DO know is that, instead of definitive proof of blind and fair justice, we have a great big confirmation of what a crock of shit this really is.