Hunter Biden, son of the current President of the United States, has been convicted as a felon by a Delaware court jury on Tuesday. Similarly, the jury in a Manhattan court found former President Donald Trump guilty of all charges last month, leading to implications for the US judicial system. However, the media’s handling of Hunter Biden’s conviction, particularly concerning his purchase and possession of a gun while battling drug addiction and falsifying government forms, has revealed complexities and contradictions in reporting, reflecting broader challenges within the US media landscape.
During the recent trial involving former President Trump, many liberal media outlets in the US conducted a simultaneous trial of their own. Upon Trump’s conviction on all 34 felony counts, these outlets displayed unreserved jubilation, amplifying Trump’s characteristic scorn for the verdict. Yet, they overlooked numerous biased aspects of the trial and its proceedings.
In contrast, these same media outlets are now endeavouring to portray Biden Jr. not as the privileged son of a powerful family living extravagantly beyond his means, but rather as an emblem of the average American facing adversity and addiction. However, the distinction lies in Biden’s access to familial support and resources, which were not effectively utilized to address his struggles.
Following the verdict, President Biden has consistently emphasized his commitment to upholding the rule of law, despite the formidable display of power by his influential family during the hearings in Wilmington. Preceding the trial, extensive efforts were made by the defendant’s family to obstruct proceedings through governmental channels and plea bargaining, employing tactics reminiscent of those seen in India. However, the intervention of a federal judge appointed by Trump in Delaware prevented these efforts. The defense has appealed the judge’s decision, arguing that the case infringes upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights, despite the irony of President Biden’s strict stance on gun control.
Despite overwhelming evidence against Hunter Biden, including testimony from his ex-wife, ex-lover (who was also his deceased brother’s widow), and other women, it’s evident why the Bidens attempted to suppress it. Now, media outlets are suggesting that the initial jury was evenly divided on the verdict, with unanimity only reached after deliberations the following day. Regarding Hunter Biden’s potential sentencing, various opinions from news outlets and experts imply that he does not warrant a jail term, let alone the maximum of 25 years provided by law, as his crime is deemed less severe and he is now reportedly “clean.” However, it’s crucial to note that Biden did lie to obtain a firearm in 2018 and possessed a gun while struggling with addiction, despite having ample familial and legal support to avoid such actions.
A former prosecutor in the US suggested that rather than facing trial, Hunter Biden should have been directed towards addiction treatment and counseling. This approach draws parallels to a recent incident in India where a minor driving a Porsche, involved in a fatal accident, was merely tasked with writing an essay on road safety and familiarizing themselves with traffic regulations. Both cases involve individuals from affluent backgrounds who possess the means to understand and adhere to the law. Despite being 48 years old at the time of his offense, Biden falsely filled out a form to purchase a handgun, demonstrating a lack of regard for legal obligations. Additionally, it was his partner who disposed of the firearm, not Biden himself.
On the same day his son was convicted for illegally possessing a firearm and lying to obtain it while addicted to drugs, an animated President Biden called for the ban of assault weapons and stricter purchase regulations at a gun safety meeting in Washington DC. Despite this, the question remains unanswered as to why Hunter felt the need for a gun. Some speculate that the media’s deliberate downplaying of facts could suggest a conspiracy, possibly to divert attention from more serious charges against Hunter. President Biden’s praise for the judicial system and portrayal of his son as being held accountable like any other American may be an attempt to assert that Hunter has fulfilled his societal obligation. However, if Hunter avoids a jail sentence while Trump faces one, many may perceive this as unjust.
Judge Maryellen Noreika has signaled her intention to deliver Hunter Biden’s sentence 120 days post-conviction, although a specific date has not been determined. Factors to be weighed include Biden’s status as a first-time offender, yet the maximum penalty stands at 25 years imprisonment and a $750,000 fine. Conversely, Judge Juan Merchan is slated to announce Trump’s sentencing on July 11, just four days before the Republican National Convention, where he is anticipated to be chosen as the party’s candidate for the election.
Hunter Biden’s legal troubles continue as he faces a tax evasion charge in California scheduled for September. The charges against him include six misdemeanor counts of failing to file tax returns and pay taxes, one felony count of tax evasion, and two felony counts of filing false returns. These allegations portray him as a wealthy heir living extravagantly while neglecting his tax obligations, contrasting sharply with the responsibilities borne by ordinary citizens. Despite the charges, Biden Jr. has pleaded not guilty.
It is claimed that between 2016 and 2019, Hunter allegedly devised a scheme to evade paying $1.4 million in income tax. Prosecutors assert that during this time, he earned over $7 million and spent lavishly on “drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing and other items of a personal nature, in short, everything but his taxes”.
