Long ago, in a galaxy far away, I was the news editor of a television station in the Shenandoah Valley. I was also the anchor of the two principal news broadcasts, at 6 and 11 pm. One night, while preparing the 11 pm, a story came across the wire: “State Senator Charged With Reckless Driving.”
There were some problems with the story, if what you wanted out of it was a scandal. The senator, not speeding and not impaired, topped a slight rise in the road and was confronted by a horse-drawn carriage plodding along in the lane ahead of him. He made an emergency stop, but not in time to avoid striking the carriage. Damage was slight and no one was hurt, not even the horse.
The other problem, for me, was that the senator was my best friend.
I didn’t have long to think about it. Deadlines in television are fierce and unrelenting. I called him, to say, “I’m really sorry, but I have to run this story.”
“You know,” he said, “the state trooper told me there was no question in his mind that the judge would dismiss the charge. But he felt he had to write it.”
“Yes,” I said, “And that’s news. That’s why I have to run it.”
“He only charged me because I’m a senator.”
“That’s right. And you are, in fact, a senator. That’s why he wrote it, why it’s news, and why I have to run it.”
“Not fair.”
“I’ll tell you what else is not fair. If the trooper did not run it, or if I did not report it, then people — and make no mistake, people would find out about it whether it made the news or not — would assume that the fix was in, that you got special treatment because you’re a powerful politician. It would be like cancer, and it would last for years.”
I reported it, as did several other news outlets. In due course, the judge dismissed the charge. My friend — I was no longer his best friend, but still a friend — was re-elected.
The memory came back to me when I saw the verdict in the Hunter Biden case. He was charged with buying a gun while addicted to drugs, which is illegal, and lying about his addiction in order to do it anyway.
There are some problems with this story, if you want to make a scandal out of it. The gun was never used by him, and was in his possession for 11 days. The defense claimed that he had just come out of rehab and did not believe himself to be addicted. Legal experts agree; he would not have been tried on those charges if his father were not president of the United States. It may seem unfair that this is the case. But if the rule of law is to remain sovereign, it cannot be any other way.
President Biden understands this. Whereas I had the power to do my friend a small favor and keep him off a few newscasts, President Biden has the absolute power to protect his son from any and all consequences of a conviction. But if he did so the resulting recriminations would afflict him and his son for years to come, like cancer.
Hunter Biden may well have done the country a great service. His conviction, coming when it did, totally destroyed the wild claims of the MAGA cult that American justice has been perverted, “weaponized,” into a tool deployed only against Donald Trump and his cronies. Assuming the judge in the Hunter Biden chase does not impose a Draconian sentence, perhaps it will turn out to have been worth it for the Biden presidency and family.
If we are to be ruled by laws and not men, that is the way it has to be.
I really enjoyed the first part of your article. However, I humbly would point out that in the beginning of Hunter’s saga, that the “MAGA Cult” (Nice one!), may have been at least partially correct in their accusations that a perversion of the justice system was about to take place. I put it to you, that the reason Hunter was tried, was not because his dad was the President of these States United, but rather that the “sweeping immunity” plea deal that the Federal Prosecutors were willing to accept fell apart under the scrutiny of a U.S. District Judge.
Newsweek summarized the plea deal thus: “Under the initial plea deal, Biden was expected to plead guilty to two misdemeanors for failing to pay his federal taxes on time in 2017 and 2018, while avoiding being prosecuted for a felony gun charge—illegally possessing a firearm as a drug user.”- Katherine Fung Newsweek, 7.26.23
I hardly think that you, I, or the average man in the street would find the Federal Prosecutors as lenient for 2 years of non-payment of taxes AND a gun charge. Although hunter was convicted, the rule of law did not equally apply to him in the beginning of his ordeal. And if such a plea deal went though as planned, the Rule of Law would have been subverted once again by those who have friends in high places.
As far as our President pardoning his son, if the sentence is anything more than probation and some community service he should absolutely do so. The power of the presidential pardon is unlimited when it comes to Federal crimes, and is perfectly in line with his powers under the U.S. Constitution. If he truly believes Hunter innocent by reason of crack addition (or by any other means) but won’t stand up to the “recriminations” of the ignorant masses to save his only living Son from a prison cell – He’s showing the world he’ll bow down to political pressure instead of standing up for his convictions when something (or someone) important is on the line.
Veritas Vos Liberabit,
A. A.
As I understand it, the record shows that when an illegally acquired gun is not involved in any other crime (and is possessed for only 11 days), or when unpaid taxes have been paid along with all penalties, lenient plea deals are the rule.
I agree that the whole affair may benefit the Biden campaign in an odd way.
As far as the trial outcome in concerned, I see it as an example of what I will call ‘reverse jury nullification’. This happens when powerful people are penalized for being just that – powerful. Juries, mostly made up of common folk, may be harder on rich or powerful defendants than on more typical defendants. This may be because some jurors hold such people to a higher standard, or it may simply occur as a result of deep resentments that some jurors may harbor for the rich and powerful.
For example, some 50 years ago, Patty Hearst was wrongly convicted of participating in a bank robbery. She’d been kidnapped, tortured and brainwashed over an extended period of time by the actual culprits, and was forced at gunpoint to take a minor role in the bank heist. She was very young, and to say that she was under extreme duress through all of this would most certainly be an egregious understatement…It was her wealth and privilege that got her kidnapped, and her wealth and privilege that got her convicted!
Reverse jury nullification can work against the victims as well. Back in 1981, John Hinckley shot four people in front of cameras and in broad daylight. He was let off with a bogus insanity plea. Why? Because one of the victims was President Ronald Reagan…Washington DC was a liberal stronghold. Justice for Reagan was not on the liberal agenda.