Left-wing media outlets gloated about how the justice system is operating smoothly on Tuesday night after President Joe Biden’s brother was found guilty of three felonies. But it’s only because they’re so desperate to persuade the British people that a conviction for a murderer’s guilt against former president Donald Trump justifies their use of force.
Hunter was found guilty of lying on program documents while using drugs to buy guns and possessing the firearm without permission.
According to Andrew Weissmann, a constitutional analyst for MSNBC, the decision demonstrated that President Biden was the “embodiment of the rule of law” because he” could have at any moment requested that his Justice Department get rid of this situation.”
As IRS whistleblowers have alleged, President Biden may not have immediately ordered his Court to “get away of this situation,” but the DOJ sluggishly conducted its research into Hunter, allowing the statute of limitations on his alleged tax evasion to lapse between 2014 and 2015. During that time frame, Hunter was being paid as much as$ 83, 000 per month to sit on the board of a Russian energy firm, Burisma, where his principal factor appeared to be the Trump “brand” and accessibility to his parents, who was then- vice president. Hunter will be subject to separate tax liabilities in September after failing to pay more than$ 1.4 million in taxes that Kevin Morris, his Hollywood client, has since paid back.
Weissmann added that he is “less interested in the description of the case” and “more interested in the fact that the faith can be used to contrast Trump’s answer to the guilty verdict in his sham trial.”
Chuck Todd, the NBC’s chief social scientist, also argued that the justice system was founded on “fairness” before criticizing Trump for bringing up the conviction in his trial.
Kate Bedingfield, a former White House communications director under Biden, said the decision “undermines the claim that Trump has been making that Joe Biden has been using the fairness system.”
However, as these left-wing talking heads make clear in their feedback, the effectiveness of Hunter’s conviction has nothing to do with the “rule of rules” and is everything to do with refuting the left’s statements that the justice system is not being used against Trump.
A win for the departed depends on how well law enforcement work against Trump turn out. It should come as no surprise that they are making fun of the younger Biden’s trial by pretending the two convictions are similar in some way.
The communist argument follows: If President Biden can claim that he respects the rule of law in a situation overseen by a Biden benefactor and that a crime has been committed for years, then Trump should also respect what occurs when a prosecutor who ran on a “get Trump” plan charges him with a fascinating legal idea.
However, if the “rule of rules” were to be applied to these experts, it would be outrageous that Biden’s Department of Justice “disregarded the patients who were sexually exploited by Hunter Biden” after Hunter reportedly paid prostitutes” and used these payments as income expenses for one of his companies,” as the House Oversight Committee put it in perspective. Or perhaps they would be upset that Hunter, despite admitting to the committee that he was being paid by businesses affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party, never registered as a foreign agent. However, those accusations would go too far because it is n’t really about proving any guilt for Hunter or his father, who has been linked to the alleged crimes he referred to. The goal is to justify the “get- Trump” lawfare.
In fact, if the “rule of law” mattered so much there would be charges for dozens of others, including Hillary Clinton, every illegal migrant, everyone involved in Benghazi, Democrats who flouted their own lockdown rules during the pandemic, the” Black Lives Matter” rioters who caused more than$ 2 billion worth of damage to private and federal property, and everyone involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile ring, as my colleague Jordan Boyd points out.
Brianna Lyman is a correspondent for The Federalist on elections.
