Dem
51
GOP
49
Somehow, some way, Joe Biden/the Democrats/George Soros/the Deep State/[insert bugaboo here] have enough power to get Donald Trump indicted by a grand jury (four times), put on trial, and convicted once so far (well, once criminally, plus several more civil defeats). And yet, they do not have the power to keep Biden's own son from being put on trial. It is a strange power, with strange limits, not unlike how the Headless Horseman can't cross the covered bridge, or how Sir Gawain is invincible, but only around noon each day.
In any case, the first of two scheduled Hunter Biden trials is now officially underway. Both trials will be conducted by Donald Trump-appointed judges; for the current one, Maryellen Noreika will be holding the gavel. Just before the trial got underway, she made a pair of rulings adverse to the first son, barring both an expert witness and a piece of exculpatory evidence the defense intended to use.
With this said, Biden's lawyers will still be in a position to mount a pretty effective defense. The defendant is accused of lying on the form he filled out when purchasing a gun, as he checked the box that said "I am not a drug addict." The lawyers will attack this from several vantage points: (1) that Biden was in denial as to his addiction when he filled out the form and so did not consciously lie, (2) that this particular law is virtually never prosecuted with this particular fact pattern (it's usually used to increase penalties if a gun is used to commit a crime), (3) that Biden had the gun for only a couple of weeks before getting rid of it, and (4) that the law in question might not be constitutional.
Jury selection began... and concluded... yesterday. The media is not reporting exhaustive profiles on the jurors, as happened with the Trump case. However, it is known that the folks who were empaneled get their news from a range of sources not dissimilar to the list from the Trump trial. Also, some members of the jury have experience with substance abuse, either involving themselves personally or else a family member. Those individuals are presumably most likely to be sympathetic to the defendant.
The President is keeping his distance from the case. He issued a statement yesterday that read, in part: "As the President, I don't and won't comment on pending federal cases, but as a Dad, I have boundless love for my son, confidence in him, and respect for his strength." Joe Biden has said there will be no presidential pardon for his son, but we very seriously doubt that promise will hold once November's elections are in the rear-view mirror.
It's not a terribly complicated case, so it won't take too long to reach resolution. The most common guess is "sometime next week." It is not hard to predict the Republican spin, once that day arrives. If the First Son is convicted, then it will be "See? Everyone bends the rules sometimes." Of course, the convicted Biden will not be a presidential candidate, while the convicted Trump is, so that's a difference. And if the First Son is exonerated, then it will be "See? One set of rules for Democrats and another set of rules for Republicans." Of course, there is the small matter that such an interpretation would mean that a Trump-appointed judge was in the bag for the Democrats. (Z)