Hunter Biden’s trial starts today. He is charged with lying on a federal firearms application because he said he was not using drugs when in fact he was in the throes of a serious addiction. He had the gun for two weeks. It was never used in a crime. He is not taking drugs anymore. As this New York Times story notes, this crime is almost never prosecuted for a first-time offender, especially without an underlying, more serious crime. It’s a nothingburger. As even Republican senator Lindsey Graham acknowledged to HuffPost, “I don’t think the average American would have been charged with the gun thing.”
The Hunter Biden trial is the flip side of the Trump trial—both prosecutions are based on weak charges, and both were brought almost entirely because of the defendant’s prominence. Republicans, who have been claiming Trump’s guilty verdict is proof the Biden administration has “weaponized the justice system” to damage his opponent in the upcoming election, are more than happy to see Hunter Biden prosecuted on the flimsiest of charges.
But even putting aside the fact the Trump case was brought by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney—who has no connection to the federal Justice Department—weaponization was not a factor. Just like the attorneys prosecuting Hunter Biden, Bragg and his team were prosecuting Trump simply because that’s what they do.
Had the district attorney’s office been trying to find something on Trump? You bet it had. That’s what prosecutors do as well—all the time. They read stories about possible financial fraud, and they start digging. There was a ton of published material about potential wrongdoing by Trump. And once they start digging, they don’t like to stop until they find something or come up with a theory that makes an ugly but seemingly benign action suddenly a crime. For instance, to put Michael Milken away, then–U.S. attorney Rudy Giuliani had to stretch securities laws significantly. (He also threatened to indict Milken’s father.) Bragg did the exact same thing with Trump.
In New York magazine, Elie Honig, a former prosecutor, said that Bragg had “contorted the law” to make his case. Probably true. But he also wrote, “Plenty of prosecutors have won plenty of convictions in cases that shouldn’t have been brought in the first place.” Definitely true. That’s not weaponization; that’s how the system works.
It’s just that most of the time we never learn about the people who have to defend themselves against flimsy charges because a prosecutor wants a scalp. I know a guy going through this in New Jersey right now, where prosecutors are trying to put him in prison because his company’s stock rose momentarily when he tried to obtain some Covid-19 tests to help his hospital customers. (He has been charged with securities fraud.) I spent a year with this guy when I was writing my book The Big Fail. I know he didn’t do anything wrong. The charges are transparently bogus. The first time he was tried, it was a hung jury. But the prosecutors won’t give up—they are determined to get a guilty verdict no matter how much they have to distort the facts. My source is spending millions of dollars to defend himself in a case every bit as flimsy as the one against Donald Trump or Hunter Biden. But because he’s not Hunter Biden or Donald Trump, nobody cares.
I admit politics played a part in both high-profile cases. At first, prosecutors worked out a plea deal with Hunter Biden. But Republicans objected, and after it drew unusual scrutiny from a Trump-appointed judge, the deal fell apart. I suppose the prosecutors could have then dropped the charges. But that’s not what prosecutors do. Their instinct, always, is to prosecute, to collect scalps. They measure success by how many guilty verdicts they garner. Which is the fundamental reason we now have the president’s son on trial—and the possibility that a jury will find him guilty.
The criminal justice system would of course be better if prosecutors cared more about seeking genuine justice than collecting scalps. But it’s not likely to change. Weaponization is not the issue. It’s that prosecutors are going to prosecute. Get used to it.
Joe Nocera is a columnist for The Free Press. Read his piece “The Humiliating Cross-Examination of SBF,” and follow him on X @opinion_joe.
Become a Free Press subscriber today:
Many articles could be written about the omissions and fallacies in this article. You want us to get used a justice system that functions like a banana republic? Here are just a few highlights and questions:
No mention of Hunter's laptop and its contents, which MSM and deep state intel officials falsely called Russian disinformation. No mention of Hunter's payments from Burisma and other foreign oligarchs that leave him and his father hopelessly compromised. Why are you citing The New York Times' biased take? We are here to read TFP, not NYT.
"But even putting aside the fact the Trump case was brought by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney—who has no connection to the federal Justice Department—weaponization was not a factor." Alvin Bragg's lead prosecutor in the case, Matthew Colangelo, was previously Acting Associate Attorney General at DOJ and served as an assistant to Obama. How many people leave high ranking federal jobs to join a local DA's office? Did you see the creepy smile Joe flashed when asked if he had anything to do with the prosecution?
Judge Juan Merchan donated to Democrats and his daughter Loren's agency makes millions from Democrat campaigns. Why did he not recuse himself? What would happen if the judge in Hunter's case had the same conflicts of interest? Here are 34 reasons why the case should have been tossed: https://paulingrassia.substack.com/p/34-reasons-the-bragg-biden-show-trial
How would the MSM cover the Hunter case if Donald Trump Jr. was accused of the same crimes? Or if he slept with Eric Trump's widow and fathered a child with a stripper who Trump Sr. refuses to acknowledge? https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/say-her-name-navy-biden
I agree with the conclusion. The system is broken, but ya just could not help but brush your partisan excrement over it. Hunters' plea deal did not fall apart because "republicans". It fell apart because it included immunity for other and even undiscovered crimes. If reporters can't tell he truth is it any wonder readers can't discern truth?