/
No, Hunter Biden's gun conviction doesn't 'uphold the rule of law'

No, Hunter Biden's gun conviction doesn't 'uphold the rule of law'


No, Hunter Biden's gun conviction doesn't 'uphold the rule of law'

Hunter’s gun charge conviction is supposed to cover the fact that Democrats are ruthlessly using the legal system to persecute their main opponent and his aides in multiple jurisdictions purely for political reasons.

Robert Knight
Robert Knight

Robert Knight is a columnist for The Washington Times. His latest book is "Crooked: What Really Happened in the 2020 Election and How to Stop the Fraud."

Don’t be fooled by Hunter Biden ‘s conviction this past week on three gun charges.

Sure, he’s guilty, but it’s just a distraction, like the Monica Lewinsky case during the Clinton administration. More on that later.

The real scandals involving the Biden family, China, Ukraine, Russia, 20 shell bank accounts and possibly President Biden himself, are being ignored by the Justice Department and the media.

The gun disgrace is one of the few scandals lurking in Hunter’s “laptop from hell” that doesn’t entangle the rest of the Bidens, who are hip deep in influence peddling.

Special counsel David Weiss has done everything possible to avoid prosecuting the real crimes . He slow walked investigations, let statutes of limitation run out and even tipped off the Biden lawyers about classified documents at the Biden home and office.

Contrast that with the FBI’s actually raiding President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, as well as the homes of several of his former aides.

By the way, Hunter Biden is facing charges in Los Angeles involving $1.4 million in allegedly unpaid federal taxes from 2016 to 2019. Had you heard about that? I thought not.

Hunter’s gun charge conviction is supposed to cover the fact that Democrats are ruthlessly using the legal system to persecute their main opponent and his aides in multiple jurisdictions purely for political reasons.

They are also using federal agencies to punish dissenters from their woke agenda in a manner similar to the way President Obama’s IRS illegally targeted the tea parties and other conservative groups.

But Hunter’s conviction is supposed to show us that justice is blind.

A Washington Post editorial cartoon expressed this perfectly with a “both sides do it” theme. It showed a newsstand headline of Hunter’s conviction with another showing Republicans lamenting the “weaponization” of the justice system. We’re even now, okay?

Similarly, the Monica Lewinsky sexcapade in the mid-1990s embarrassed Bill Clinton and got him impeached but kept the spotlight off the far more serious “Chinagate” scandal.

That’s when the Clinton administration green-lighted American sensitive technology to communist China in return for hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding for Democratic campaigns.

A president committing perjury is bad, and his seduction of a barely adult White House intern is morally reprehensible. But it wasn’t treason like Chinagate, or, say, President Biden’s deliberate refusal to secure the border.

Or Mr. Biden’s attacks on fossil fuels and gas-powered vehicles to force us to rely on communist China for battery components, solar panels and windmill parts.

This kind of sell out was modeled by the Clintons. In his 1999 book, “Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined National Security,” Washington Times Defense and National Security Correspondent Bill Gertz explains how the Clinton team eased exports of sensitive, high-speed computer, software and satellite technology to communist China in exchange for campaign funds from big-pocket Democrat donors.

“Shortly after the ‘decontrols’ took place,” he wrote, “American supercomputers began showing up in both Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons development centers.”

Money also came in from China itself and from Russia.

A bagman, Johnny Chung, “first met the Clintons in 1992,” according to American Spectator investigative reporter Robert Zapesochny.

“From 1994 to 1996, Chung visited the White House 49 times. … In one visit, Chung paid the DNC $50,000.”

Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a Moscow speech after Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved giving Russians control of one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity.

During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) paid for the salacious Steele dossier that the media used as a club to bash Donald Trump.

When it was found to be a fraud, the DNC was fined $105,000 and Mrs. Clinton a mere $8,000 for misrepresenting the payments as “legal services.” That’s essentially the same charge that landed Mr. Trump with 34 felony convictions in a New York court last week. Only, Mr. Trump had actually sent the money to his lawyer.

Earlier, Mrs. Clinton falsely accused Mr. Trump of colluding with a Russian bank while prodding the FBI to spy on him. This began the “Russian Collusion” hoax. One of the masterminds was Jake Sullivan, who is now President Biden’s national security advisor. See a pattern here?

Hillary, whose home basement server compromised national security, erased 33,000 emails sought by investigators and had several cell phones full of evidence smashed. No penalties whatsoever.

Contrast this with former President Trump, who was impeached twice on trumped up charges. Now, along with his loss in a New York civil case that had no victims, he faces prison time and hundreds of millions in fines. Meanwhile, Democrats are prosecuting him in three more courts.

Former Trump aide Peter Navarro is serving a four-month prison term for defying a Jan. 6 committee subpoena. He refuses to discuss confidential conversations in the White House. Another former aide, Steve Bannon, was also convicted of contempt of Congress and is slated to enter prison on July 1.

Think about all this while you see story after story about poor Hunter Biden and his beleaguered family and how his conviction somehow “upholds the rule of law.”


This article originally appeared here.

Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.