“They are trying to, in their most illegitimate … but rational way, they’re trying to destroy a presidency,” he said in the episode of Moby Pod.

“What they’re trying to do is they’re trying to kill me, knowing that it will be a pain greater than my father could be able to handle, and so therefore destroying a presidency in that way,” he said, adding that they want him to relapse to drug abuse.

“It’s not about me,” he continued, adding that “these people are just sad, very, very sick people that have most likely just faced traumas in their lives that they’ve decided that they are going to turn into an evil that they decide that they’re going to inflict on the rest of the world”. He also accused conservative news outlets of “harassing” him.

Mr Biden added: “I’m gonna survive it clean and sober, is because I am not gonna let these [expletive], OK, use me as just another example of why people in recovery are never gonna be OK, never to be trusted, they’re all degenerates.”

  • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    I actually agree with this but its also an impossible situation in the sense that he has to answer for shit and society must answer by fully pursuing and prosecuting any rich asshole who plays games with the system. Hunter has a mitigating defense in the sense he was a drug addict who had major addiction issues but there needs to be consistency and predictabillity in how and to whom these cases are investigated, charged, prosecuted, and punished.

    • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Indeed there should be consistency. What would normally happen in this situation was what would have happened if the judge hadn’t blocked the original plea deal.

      The office of the US attorney of Delaware, David Weiss, has been investigating Hunter Biden since 2018 over potential violations of tax and gun laws. Weiss, who was appointed by Donald Trump, announced last month that his office had reached an agreement with Hunter Biden in which the president’s son would plead guilty to two federal misdemeanor tax violations while entering a pre-trial diversion program on a separate felony gun charge.

      But the judge, another Trump appointee, no doubt saw the same opportunity that the GOP in congress did and rejected the plea deal. Because Hunter Biden is the son of the current Democratic president, he is not getting the same treatment that anyone else would have gotten in this situation.

      Despite Republicans’ gripes, a number of legal experts have framed Hunter Biden’s indictment as unusually harsh, given that prosecutors rarely bring such gun charges. The law underlying one of the three criminal counts is also now facing legal challenges after the supreme court’s recent expansion of second amendment rights.

      In fact, the law about drug users being in possession of firearms is one that has been effectively ruled unconstitutional in the fifth circuit thanks to challenges to it and recent SCOTUS rulings.

      Those recent rulings include an August decision from the New Orleans-based US court of appeals for the fifth circuit that challenged the law barring users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms. The conservative-leaning court ruled that the supreme court’s decision last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, which established a new standard for reviewing firearm regulations in a historical context, rendered the 1968 law unconstitutional.

      “In short, 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,” Judge Jerry Smith wrote in the ruling. “Nor do more generalized traditions of disarming dangerous persons support this restriction on nonviolent drug users.”

      Also…

      A separate case considered by the third circuit, which does cover Delaware, could also have some bearing on Hunter Biden’s case. In Range v Attorney General, the third circuit issued what the judges called a “narrow” decision indicating that the federal government cannot ban people convicted of non-violent crimes from possessing guns.

      Republicans want the law overturned but not until Hunter is convicted and sentenced for it. That is not consistent application of the law, that is political gamesmanship.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      He’s being prosecuted for something people are almost never prosecuted for, especially when they pay the money back, which he did. On top of that, there’s a gun charge which, for some reason I can’t imagine, Republicans aren’t rushing to his defense about.

      • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah this is bullshit theater. But the prosecution decision came from the DoJ, not Congress. It’s not that you’re wrong per se it’s just that I find it hard to get up in arms about powerful people being held to account

        • takeda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          DoJ wants to appear that it isn’t working for the president, like it was with the previous guy, and they absolutely can be influenced to maintain that image.

          • The Federal prosecutor (David Weiss) in the case was not replaced, and is the same appointed by trump, because Biden didn’t want to make it look like he is helping his son (usually they change with Presidents)
          • initially Hunter got a plea deal by the same, but due to outrage that was rejected
          • then a special counsel (again the same prosecutor) was appointed (which have him more powers) and he got an indictment

          This is unusual, as it never goes that far because of unpaid taxes. You just get a large fines, and apparently he already paid off everything.

          I normally would be ok with this as, he committed a crime and he should be treated the same as anyone else, but can’t help but notice that looks like he is treated worse to show the office is impartial.

          My fear is that if judge clears him of any wrongdoing there still will be an outrage.

          • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            11 months ago

            There will be an outrage over something no matter what. They will make one. There is no circumstance where republicans don’t make, find, exaggerate, or straight up fabricate outrage.

    • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah it’s hard to describe how little I care about Hunter Biden as a political issue. As a human I want him to continue to get the help he needs to stay clean and healthy. As a member of society I want to see the rich and powerful held accountable. As a political event I could not care one iota less.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Ignoring the fact that it is extremely unusual to be indicted for tax fraud (usually just ends up with large fines and it looks like that this is done, because they desperately want something on his father), he is actually talking that they literally want to kill him. Biden was totally devastated when his other son died of cancer. That’s why he didn’t run in 2016.

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        unusual to be prosecuted for tax fraud

        That’s the problem, right here officer. Fucking make it usual. Make it foreseeable, like in Billions (I practically wanna jerk of to that scene lol) where the DA’s rich buddy’s crying cuz his old friend is already writing the closing statement he’s gonna need to put his pal in prison for his financial crimes

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          11 months ago

          I want tax evasion to be prosecuted more aggressively, but not nearly as much as I want the legal system to treat all defendants equally. Throwing the book at one particular defendant and then going back to business as usual serves no legitimate purpose, especially when the motivation is so obviously political.

          • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Hunter’s gonna be fine, worst case he’s looking at like 2 years in the plushest of Club Feds. He’s gonna be just fine, like Martha Stewart. She’s got more street cred than Snoop for God’s sake

            She’s gangsta as—well, you know how it go

            Edit: The Trump “boys” tho, well, they are in for a world of hurt and free shelter for a good long while. I don’t even wanna think about their well-deserved sentencing guidelines once their party train really gets rollin’

        • takeda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well, the GOP is pushing this and at the same time pushing to remove funding to IRS that allows to go after rich fucks.

          I don’t have a problem with going after tax fraud, but this won’t solve anything if it is an exception to a rule rather than a rule.