Brief Overview of America: Hunter Biden Utilizes Trump’s Ruling to Appeal Conviction

U.S. President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, is appealing to have his recent conviction overturned, citing the appeals court ruling earlier this week in favour of former President Donald Trump.

Mr. Biden was found guilty on June 11 of lying about his drug use to buy a gun in 2018, making him the first child of a sitting U.S. president to receive a criminal conviction.

His lawyers now argue that a ruling on July 15 in favour of the former president—which decided the prosecutor was unlawfully appointed—sets a precedent for Mr. Biden’s case.

A Special Council is a special prosecutor that can be appointed—commonly by the Attorney General—when an investigation would be a conflict of interest. An example would be legal matters involving sitting and former presidents.

But the appointment of the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, leading the case to prosecute former President Trump was ruled unlawful on July 15 by Southern District Court of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, and the case was dismissed.

Mr. Smith had been appointed as Special Counsel to prosecute the former president for holding onto classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago headquarters in Florida. Mr. Smith’s office is appealing the verdict.

Mr. Biden is now claiming that Special Counsel David Weiss was appointed to prosecute him under the same conditions as Mr. Smith.

In the case against former President Trump, Judge Cannon had ruled that under proper procedure, officers must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, or appointed to a position by Congress and signed into law by the president. Mr. Smith’s appointment was not done under either of these procedures, and therefore the Indictment was “DISMISSED.”

Mr. Biden’s lawyers argue “Now that the defect has been recognized and used to invalidate an indictment brought by the Special Counsel against former President Trump, the equivalent result should be available to Mr. Biden. Different defendants but same constitutional flaws.”

Although Mr. Weiss had been nominated and confirmed as U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, Mr. Biden’s lawyers are likening this reasoning for improper appointment to a “bait-and-switch,” arguing that it doesn’t resolve the issue that he has been improperly appointed.

Mr. Biden has also pleaded not guilty to a tax case against him being led by Mr. Weiss, which is scheduled for a September trial.

The potential ripple effects from Judge Cannon’s ruling have already started to become apparent, questioning the limitations of the attorney general’s appointment powers when handling sensitive investigations, which could affect methods of practice in the U.S. Justice Department.

In the days following Judge Cannon’s ruling, ex-FBI informant Alexander Smirnov, who was also charged by Mr. Weiss as part of the same investigation into the Biden family’s alleged corruption, has also moved to have the charges against him dismissed over allegations that he lied to the FBI regarding an alleged bribe paid to the Bidens.