Summary
Hunter Biden’s criminal cases were politically motivated and unprecedented in their prosecution.
Despite initially agreeing to a nonprosecution agreement, special counsel David Weiss reneged on the deal and indicted Biden on multiple charges, including gun and tax offenses.
The cases were selectively prosecuted, as other individuals with similar offenses were able to resolve their cases without criminal charges.
Enforce, but use context.
He should he treated as any other coke addict that is in court in Delaware and is actively in a recovery program. Meaning, the gun thing should’ve been resolved with a plea deal, community service time and forced attendance of outpatient care / verified recovery meetings.
And the stuff while in the throes of addiction? Similar plan, but with a plan to pay back taxes.
In and out. Resolved in a few months.
So you want “selective enforcement”? That’s what we have now, is your problem a rich and politically connected person was select d instead of a poor minority? Because they’re still be selected for enforcement, and their daddy’s can’t pardon them…
Crack, not coke. There’s a legal distinction.
Biden’s own 1994 Crime bill made a distinction with drastically higher minimum sentences for crack compared to coke.
Or is this also where you think being white, rich, and politically connected over rides that too?
Your problem isn’t with the failures of the justice system, just that it’s hurting the wrong people.
Yes, I think proper sentencing / punishment should be contextual.
If you’re battling a disease that affects your behavior, you should be given leniency if you can prove that you have a care plan in place. Lots of places do this. Some formally, some informally.
Hunter would’ve likely been treated with more leniency if he wasn’t the presidents’ son. I see LOTS of poor and middle class people, on a weekly basis, that have gotten in trouble for similar stuff, and they’ve been able to get right with the court / prosecutor and move on quickly.