Opinion: Why Hunter Biden ought to have admitted his guilt
The main point here is that the law of the land is functioning properly. The Department of Justice, under the leadership of President Joe Biden, prosecuted Hunter Biden's son and convicted him, showcasing a fair and unbiased justice system.
The conundrum lies in the fact that Hunter Biden chose to take his chances with a jury rather than plead guilty, despite the advantages that a guilty plea would have given him and numerous others close to him.
In September, Hunter Biden faced charges with three counts related to his acquisition and possession of a firearm while taking illegal drugs. Prosecutors had strong evidence of his wrongdoing – he had knowingly made false statements on a firearm purchase application from October 2018, seeking a Colt revolver.
In general, first-time criminal defendants have better prospects for receiving probation or shorter sentences when they plead guilty instead of going to trial.
Moreover, Hunter Biden's conviction was not unexpected. In the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Firearms Transaction Record, he answered 'no' to the question, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any other controlled substance?" – a federal crime to falsify the answers on this form.
The prosecution displayed various text messages that hinted at Hunter Biden's drug dealings and conversations about smoking crack cocaine just days after his 2018 gun buy. This was considered a direct hit on a case about a lie on a firearms purchase application.
His defense holds that Hunter Biden simply didn't consider his answers to be false when he signed the form because he wasn't using drugs at that very moment. In terms of his answer that he wasn't addicted, his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, argued that Hunter Biden didn't intentionally lie as he didn't say something he believed to be false.
However, this defense was unconvincing to ordinary jurors, similar to a tent in a heavy storm.
Considering he had the right to go to trial, anyone would be apprehensive about a guilty plea leading to imprisonment. The most extreme sentence he faces is 25 years in prison.
Hunter Biden initially agreed to a plea deal where he would not be prosecuted if he maintained a clean record and didn’t attempt to buy a gun for two years. But this arrangement fell apart last year, following US District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika's questions about the technical aspects of the initial misdemeanor plea agreement and the MAGA House Republicans' accusations of a "sweetheart deal".
David Weiss, the special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to lead the investigation into Hunter Biden, aborted the deal. Instead, he charged Hunter Biden differently from other criminals, with three felony counts for lying about drug usage during a gun purchase. This left Hunter with the choices of pleading guilty or going to trial.
While he had reason to be vexed by the escalation of the charges, Hunter still had the option to take a felony plea bargain to shield his family. If no such offer was made, he might have even pleaded guilty to all three counts of the indictment.
Nevertheless, he opted for the trial, with both his ex-wife Kathleen Buhle and Hallie Biden, his former lover, testifying about his drug usage. Hallie Biden is the widow of Beau Biden, Hunter's deceased brother. This must have been an immense emotional trauma for her, as well as for Hunter and his family.
Perhaps he thinks he has a chance on appeal with the Supreme Court's recent expansion of Second Amendment rights. However, successful court appeals for criminal convictions are incredibly rare – only about 1 in 15 cases are reversed – and it's hard to imagine appellate courts ruling that the right to purchase a firearm encompasses the right to falsify information on the purchase.
The verdict against Hunter Biden will have a significant impact on President Biden's personal life as well as his political career. Even if right-wing forces had tried to associate the president with his son's criminal actions, the fact that Hunter accepted responsibility for his actions would have decreased the longevity of the MAGA propaganda.
If Hunter had been found guilty or if the jury had been unable to reach a verdict, the president would have been faced with added political pressure. Many people in the media and a substantial portion of the public would have used the contrast between Trump's conviction for falsifying business records during the 2016 election and Hunter's lack of conviction as a means of amplifying MAGA claims that there are two distinct legal standards. President Biden acknowledged this by declaring to ABC News that he would accept the jurors' decision, regardless of its outcome, and that he would not consider pardoning his son.
Moreover, by prioritizing the rule of law over his personal feelings, Biden demonstrated a level of commitment to justice as the foundation of the nation's electoral process, despite the personal cost. In doing so, he differentiated his response from Trump's attitude towards his own guilty verdict and the pardons he bestowed upon his friends.
Read also:
Despite the potential consequences, Hunter Biden chose to exercise his right to a trial, possibly banking on a favorable appeal outcome due to the Supreme Court's recent expansions on Second Amendment rights. People often have diverse opinions on this situation, questioning Hunter's decision to plead not guilty instead of admitting guilt and potentially minimizing the punishments.
