The Hunter Biden case is filled with nuances that loom larger than the case itself.
As noted in a previous commentary, the confirmation of the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop – and its contents – exposes the conspiratorial lies by President Biden and the left-wing media.
Democrat leaders, high ranking officials of the intelligence community and major tech companies maliciously hid the truth from voters on the eve of the 2020 election – the crony media complied. They made up a false narrative – that the laptop was the product of Russian meddling — and successfully fooled the American people, just as the Hillary Clinton campaign created the bogus Steele Dossier as a political dirty trick in 2016.
Now that the truth has been established, all that incriminating information on the laptop can be used to pursue accountability for the false narrative, open up investigatory paths on Hunter’s business dealings, — and the possible involvement of Joe Biden, the “big guy.” Some of the information may come into play in Hunter’s upcoming tax evasion trial in September.
Another nuance is the question of gun control and the Second Amendment. Hunter was being convicted of illegal possession of a gun and lying on federal application forms even as his father was giving a major speech in support of greater restrictions on guns.
But the story goes beyond that ironic coincidence. It was Hunter’s claims in court that are significant and surprising. Hunter’s legal team was alleging his innocence because … (drum roll, please) … banning gun ownership by drug addicts is … UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
The lawyers said that there is nothing in the Second Amendment that restricts gun ownership. They pointed out that the Amendment says the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.”
If you follow the logic of Hunter’s legal team, current restrictions on convicted felons – or people who have spent time in mental care institutions – would also be unconstitutional. And what about those “red flag laws” that enable law enforcement to seize guns from people identified as potentially dangerous by family or friends without adjudication?
What the lawyers said in court is officially considered to be the claim and opinion of Hunter himself. Suddenly, Hunter Biden becomes the most high-profile defender of Second Amendment rights. He is in the forefront of gun owner rights, and the unofficial representative of the National Rifle Association. In fact, his stated position is more extreme than many Second Amendment rights activists.
Hunter’s claim in court is so in line with conservative defenders of gun owners’ rights that many of them publicly agreed with the defense arguments.
Okay … we know Hunter is not on the side of the Second Amendment. If he has any opinion on gun control, it is likely aligned to his father. The arguments In court were just legal bs advanced by lawyers grasping at straws to mount a defense against the overwhelming evidence.
If there is anything to be drawn from the Hunter defense argument, it is that the lawyers and the politicians are full of … (to use Papa Joe’s word) … malarky. So, there ‘tis.