Here's Why Hunter's Conviction Doesn't Prove the Justice System Isn't Weaponized

Those claiming that the Hunter Biden conviction proves our justice system has not been weaponized and that Donald Trump and others who have been claiming that to be the case (The Heritage Foundation included) are mistaken couldn’t be more wrong. Examples abound of a weaponized — or if you prefer, politicized — justice system.

Hunter’s Conviction in Perspective

Biden was convicted of illegally possessing a gun as a drug user and lying on a federal form about his illegal drug usage.

This was a simple, cut-and-dry case from the start. The jury did the only rational thing based on the overwhelming evidence against him. Biden’s entire defense was an attempt at jury nullification because of his last name and where he was being tried; it didn’t work.

Here’s the problem: As simple a case as this was, it was an epic struggle just to get it to trial. In a nutshell, he was convicted in spite of the warped, weaponized criminal justice system.

Therein lies the tip of the (problematic) iceberg.

Refusing to Follow the Evidence

Special Counsel David Weiss wanted to drop the whole prosecution against Biden but was shamed into proceeding because of the IRS whistleblowers who bravely came forward and testified under oath before Congress about the shenanigans and subterfuge going on within the Justice Department to tank the case.

Even after the whistleblowers testified, Weiss tried to get a federal judge to approve a sweetheart deal with Biden that amounted to a slap on the wrist for three serious felonies. That deal collapsed when the federal judge asked simple questions about the unorthodox deal that the prosecutors couldn’t answer to the judge’s satisfaction. The prosecution withdrew the deal, the defense objected, and the parties grudgingly took the case to trial a year later.

Garland’s Reluctance

Attorney General Merrick Garland only appointed Weiss as special counsel after he was publicly backed into a corner over his refusal to do anything about Biden’s misdeeds. And he certainly picked the right lawyer to manipulate the investigation and prosecution to give as much cover and protection as possible to Biden and the Biden family, including President Joe Biden.

Prosecutorial Incompetence or Political Cover?

Weiss, who is supposed to be a cracker jack prosecutor, allowed the statute of limitations to run out on some of the most serious criminal tax charges that could have been asserted against Biden.

Why? For some charges that were about to expire, Weiss got the defense to agree to a tolling agreement, which stopped the clock from expiring. But then he let the tolling agreement expire! What reasonable explanation is there for that?

And why did his team tip off Biden’s attorneys about places where potentially incriminating evidence was hidden in Delaware and in a storage unit, rather than executing search warrants as the investigating agents recommended? Competent prosecutors don’t allow statutes of limitation to run out; don’t voluntarily allow tolling agreements to lapse; and they certainly don’t tip off defense attorneys like Weiss did.

Those same investigators were told by Weiss’ team that they could not ask any questions of prospective witnesses about Joe Biden and other family members.

Why not? Aren’t professional investigators supposed to follow the facts no matter where they lead?

One very plausible explanation is that Weiss didn’t want to pursue any potential leads that could damage the president and reveal his involvement as the “Big Guy” in Hunter Biden’s nefarious, international, moneymaking schemes. That money, according to published reports, was funneled and secreted through a series of shell companies and involved, at least in part, selling Hunter Biden’s access to then-Vice President Joe Biden and other government officials to foreign companies, including companies connected with the communist government in China, an avowed enemy of the U.S.

Isn’t that the kind of evidence that a federal prosecutor should pursue with gusto? Of course, it is, but that didn’t happen.

Why not?

A Bridge Too FARA?

Why didn’t Weiss and his team fully investigate or indict Hunter Biden for violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, also known as FARA, 22 U.S.C. §611?

FARA is a criminal statute that requires agents acting on behalf of foreign principals (which include foreign governments and corporations) who lobby or otherwise engage in political activities for that principal (particularly lobbying U.S. federal officials), to register with the Justice Department. It is the statute that was used against former Trump 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort by the DOJ.

There is no evidence that Hunter Biden registered as a foreign agent under FARA. Just as the evidence was overwhelming in Hunter’s gun case, the evidence seems quite compelling that Hunter Biden, and potentially other people associated with his various companies, including family members, violated the FARA statute.

There Are Examples Galore of Weaponization

In contrast to the clear-cut and overwhelming evidence against Hunter Biden of a crime in the gun case, the New York City criminal charges against Trump were completely unprecedented and unorthodox, to say the least. The case was riddled with legal errors, and Trump has at least 10 meritorious issues on appeal to pursue.

Keep in mind, the gravamen of the New York case was that Trump tried to suppress a story about an alleged liaison with a woman and using his personal money to do so before he was elected so that voters wouldn’t know the “real” Donald Trump.

The idea that it is a crime for a candidate to try to kill a bad story that might affect his electoral prospects is preposterous.

If that is a viable theory, then Franklin Roosevelt was a criminal when he hid the extent of his disability from the public and how gravely ill he was when he was running for a fourth term.

What about JFK? Was he a criminal for hiding his philandering as well as how disabled he was due to Addison’s disease?

Or Bill Clinton? When he was running for president, he denied that he had an affair with Gennifer Flowers, even though, after he was elected, he admitted in his deposition in the Paula Jones case that he had slept with Flowers. Didn’t he lie on purpose to hide that embarrassing fact from the public to get elected?

Clinton lied under oath (a clear crime) about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, too, but was never prosecuted for that lie after he left office. And when Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, these same liberals who now applaud the Trump conviction and who swear that the justice system is fair, said the Clinton impeachment was outrageous and that Clinton’s sex life and desire to hide his indiscretion from his wife was nobody’s business and should be off limits.

Oh, but when Trump is accused of trying to hide a decade-old sexual indiscretion in 2016 — without lying under oath — suddenly, that is a criminal matter and is fair game for a prosecutor to pursue. Now that’s a weaponized justice system!

Want some more examples of the double standard?

How about the prosecutions by the Garland Justice Department, where the attorney general just claimed the department was not “politicizing its work” when prosecuting pro-life protesters under the FACE Act, but it hasn’t prosecuted people who firebomb pro-life pregnancy centers? Or national security and intelligence officials (and even Joe Biden) falsely claiming that the information on Hunter Biden’s laptop was likely Russian disinformation, even though the FBI had already verified its authenticity?

What about Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for possession of classified information when Hillary Clinton got a pass for all of classified documents she had on a server sitting in her house, even though her lawyers destroyed all the evidence? And when Joe Biden also just got a get-out-of-jail free card from Garland for his unlawful possession of classified information in his garage and in a private office?

Or how about how Hillary Clinton’s campaign got defensive briefings from the FBI about potential Russian interference in the 2016 election while Trump’s campaign was investigated by a special counsel for two long years in what turned out to be a complete hoax organized by the Clinton campaign?

Adding insult to injury, during that investigation, the FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — a powerful tool to investigate foreign agents who pose a severe threat to our national security — to electronically eavesdrop on people connected with the Trump campaign.

How about the fact that the Clinton campaign paid for a completely fictitious document — the infamous Steele Dossier — that was provided to federal agents for the purpose of inducing them to investigate Clinton’s political rival, Trump — a ploy that succeeded?

Oh, and what about the fact that the payments for that dossier were labeled as “legal expenses?” Fine, it seems, when Clinton does this, but what about when Trump labels a payment that actually went to his lawyer as “legal expenses”? Throw the book at him! Put him in jail!

All of this is Exhibit A in the case for a weaponized criminal justice system.

Hunter Biden, of course, is not running for president, while Donald Trump is. Moreover, the fact that Biden was convicted in a simple gun case where his guilt was proved beyond any doubt by a reluctant prosecutor before 12 jurors proves only one thing: Hunter Biden was guilty, and his paltry case got to trial despite the many efforts — some successful — by the Garland Justice Department to scuttle the entire investigation against him and to insulate any complicity by his father, who is Trump’s political rival for the presidency.

Republished from The Daily Signal.