Hunter Biden just showed the perils of playing the game of chicken with yourself.
For months, many of us have marveled at the sight of Hunter careening toward a cliff while declaring publicly that he was prepared to go all the way.
The Justice Department was never going over the cliff because they had nothing to gain or lose in open-and-shut cases in Delaware and California.
There was never a serious question of convicting Hunter of these crimes, just a will of the Justice Department to secure them.
Special Counsel David Weiss inexplicably allowed serious felonies to expire, refused to bring obvious crimes as an unregistered foreign agent, and sought to cut an embarrassing sweetheart deal with Hunter to avoid any jail time on a couple of minor crimes.
The deal then collapsed in open court when a judge balked at a provision that would give Hunter sweeping immunity for any crime.
When she asked the federal prosecutor if he had ever seen such a plea bargain offered a defendant other than the President’s son, he admitted that he had not.
That is when the chest pounding began. Unwilling to accept anything but the sweetheart deal, Hunter’s defense counsel told the prosecutors in court to “just rip it up.” They did and Weiss was forced to actually prosecute Hunter.
According to the Justice Department, Weiss continued to try to cut a plea bargain with Hunter but was rebuffed by the defense.
They then went to Delaware, the home of the Bidens, and tried to convince a sympathetic jury that Hunter was a drug addict who was not responsible for his action as well as other unsupported claims.
It failed in spectacular fashion with a conviction on all counts.
Hunter then floored it for the California cliff on the tax charges as the Justice Department and most of us watched confused about how he was trying to intimidate. He hit the brakes as the trial was beginning.
Hunter has succeeded in putting himself in the worst possible position for a plea. He waited until he had little to trade and reportedly did not even inform the prosecutors of his decision.
But it gets worse. If he had agreed to a less generous plea deal last year, he could have secured a recommended sentence on both the gun and tax charges.
Instead, he will go into this sentencing with a past criminal record, an aggravating factor that could reduce the benefit of the belated plea.
In the end, Hunter had nothing to offer, nothing to bargain. He plead guilty to all nine counts.
This decision may still be based more on political than legal calculations. Hunter was almost certain to be convicted. But it would have taken time as his father’s administration (and pardon authority) wanes.
If Hunter still hopes for a presidential commutation or pardon, the chances of such executive action is dramatically improved after a sentencing.
The White House rarely considers pardons before a trial and sentencing. Indeed, they often wait for appeals to run their course.
Moreover, a demand for jail time seems likely from the Justice Department given this history and it is equally likely to be granted.
If that sentence is lengthy, it will add pressure on President Biden to take action with a commutation or pardon.
If President Biden does violate his promise to not pardon Hunter, it would not be a surprise for many. In 2022, I wrote that the President could resign or withdraw as a candidate and pardon Hunter.
I referred to this as “break-the-glass option”: “He would end his political career with an act as a father, which some would condemn but most would understand.”
The plea also avoided the massive influence peddling operation of the Biden family from being aired in open court.
The refusal of the Justice Department to charge Hunter as an unregistered foreign agent stands in flagrant contradiction to past and current cases under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
None of this explains the logic of Hunter’s criminal defense strategy. A legal one-man game of chicken is certainly engrossing to watch, but leaves most lawyers wincing rather than flinching as the spectacle unfolds.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”