What Hunter Biden’s conviction reveals about the justice system

Hunter Biden is a private citizen and has no authority over anyone other than his family, except in the conspiratorial Republican fantasies that paint him as a puppet-master exploiting his father for profit. Why does The Post hold Mr. Biden, who is complying with the judicial system, to such a standard without calling for Donald Trump and his vast army of enablers, many of whom hold elective office, to “think less about [their] own interests and more about what’s best for ... the country”?

Perhaps that’s because The Post knows that such an appeal would be fruitless. But it cannot be just accepted that Republicans are going to nominate a felon who shows disdain and contempt for the rule of law and those who try to uphold it. And we cannot say loudly enough or often enough that anyone who plays a role in reelecting Mr. Trump is choosing to risk our nearly 250-year experiment in representative democracy.

Maurice Werner, Washington

The editorial on Hunter Biden was disingenuous. The board argued that his conviction undercuts Donald Trump’s statement that the justice system is rigged against him. Yet this reasoning ignores that the Justice Department was prepared to allow Mr. Biden to plead guilty to a misdemeanor tax offense as a plea deal. In return, the case in which Mr. Biden was just found guilty would have been dropped.

The only reason that plea deal was quashed was because a responsible and alert district judge, Maryellen Noreika, raised concerns over its legality and the range of immunity that Mr. Biden would have received. Ms. Noreika essentially told the Justice Department, “No, Hunter Biden can’t evade the law.”

In this same editorial praising the justice system, The Post brought up this lost plea deal. Given that, The Post really should have said, “Hunter Biden was found guilty despite the justice system’s attempt to avoid prosecuting him.”

Patrick Walsh, Linthicum, Md.

Joe Biden, dad

It’s easy to be a dad in good times, when our children are thriving and strong. That’s not, though, when fathers matter most. It’s when our children struggle, stumble and suffer that they need someone they can count on for steadfast belief and unwavering love.

The country saw what that looks like last week, when President Biden upended his schedule to travel to Delaware to support his son Hunter hours after the younger Biden’s conviction on federal gun charges.

There was no grumbling from President Biden about the verdict; no carping about the legal system, jury or judge; no hesitation about campaign optics in an election year. Just a solid sense of a father’s duty to stand by his son in a moment of acute crisis.

This is not the first time Mr. Biden has been called to do so. He was sworn in as a senator at the hospital bedside Hunter and his brother, Beau, as they recovered from the car crash that killed Mr. Biden’s wife and young daughter. He tucked his sons into bed each night, after the long commute home to Wilmington from his day job in the Senate. He was there when Hunter struggled with drug and alcohol addiction and when Hunter’s problems multiplied after Beau died of cancer. And he speaks often with pride of Hunter’s long road back from drug abuse.

“I am the president,” Mr. Biden said Tuesday, “but I am also a dad.”

Not every day’s a happy one, for presidents or for dads. This Father’s Day, Mr. Biden’s example reminded us all that for fathers everywhere, leadership begins at home.

Bob Deans, Bethesda

What to call Mr. Trump now

I don’t understand Carroll Bogert’s request in her June 7 Friday Opinion essay, “Don’t call Trump a ‘felon.’”

Why not use the word “felon” to describe Donald Trump, or anyone else convicted of a felony, for that matter? What about the word “inmate” to describe someone in prison? Because it keeps them on the “margins of society”? It hurts their rehabilitation chances? It hurts their feelings?

Felons or inmates are already on the margins of society, as most of society is neither. And rehabilitation is tough. It’s not supposed to be easy.

Maybe reporters have a different standard. I don’t. I believe we should call ’em as we see ’em. Mr. Trump is a felon. And he could be an inmate.

James East, Springfield, Va.

Thanks to Carroll Bogert for making this important point. Person-first language makes a real difference and should apply more widely. Don’t use racial identifiers as nouns but as the adjectives that they are. (And for that matter, The Post and other publications should stop capitalizing these adjectives in a way that gives them outsize importance relative to a person’s other qualities.) Do not say that “he is a diabetic.” No, he is a person with diabetes. And so on. Catch yourself as you use an adjective to describe a person, and teach yourself to add the noun “people.” People have many characteristics — they are not defined by any one trait — and it’s unwise to label.

Claire Cassidy, Bethesda

We call Donald Trump a liar, fraud, sociopath, and an emotional and physical abuser, but Carroll Bogert wrote that we should not call Mr. Trump a felon. What, then, should we call a person who openly shows contempt for our justice system, who has been accused of or indicted on charges of serious but nonviolent crimes, and who, when convicted, delays or escapes the consequences through protracted legal maneuvering?

I suggest we call him a “Dontrump.” The word describes the man himself, as well as the election deniers, insurrectionists and fake electoral voters who enable him. It also should please moderate Republicans who, unlike red-tie Republicans, don’t like being associated with the tarnished MAGA brand.

Call them all Dontrumps. Update your stylebook and get on it!

Bill Hoffman, Springfield

Fun with Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden

I am a huge fan of Eugene Robinson, but I think his June 11 op-ed, “Trump’s rant about sharks seems fishy,” missed the mark. He, like so many pundits, evaluates such Trump speeches on the wrong terms. They are not speeches. They are conversations with his supporters. Speeches tend to be preachy. What Donald Trump is doing is closer to a Johnny Carson monologue. And President Biden should try to imitate this kind of conversational style, because it is something Franklin D. Roosevelt did very successfully with his fireside chats.

Mr. Trump, like Carson, is communicating with his supporters as though they are sitting across the table over a coffee or beer. His comments about sharks reflected the top story that day about the unusual series of shark attacks in Florida. Electric vehicles are also a popular topic these days, and Mr. Trump’s question — What would happen if such a boat sank? — was considered a legitimate one by some. It is the sort of thing that might come up in a conversation between friends.

Of course, sometimes this approach backfires, as when Mr. Trump suggested ingesting bleach might kill the virus that causes covid-19. This approach is most successful when Mr. Trump phrases his points as questions to the audience. They feel included and consulted, even though they can’t actually answer.

Roosevelt was able to be both a conversationalist and a serious orator. Mr. Trump cannot give a serious or coherent speech to save his life, so he falls back on this conversational style. Mr. Biden, however, can give a serious, thoughtful speech but needs to supplement these addresses with some fireside chats of his own. (It would be wise for him to compose, or at least rehearse, his monologue in advance so he wouldn’t make one of his famous faux pas.)

Mr. Biden can be very charming when he is informal, friendly and grandfatherly. Why not start off with some funny incident in the news like Carson used to: “Say, did you see that Red Lobster almost went bankrupt after offering an all-you-can-eat shrimp buffet? What were they thinking? Everybody loves shrimp. Well, that’s capitalism for you.” Then start talking about the economy.

Robert Jenner, Riverdale, Md.

A path not taken

I read Attorney General Merrick Garland’s June 12 op-ed, “Justice, under threat,” with appreciation and admiration. Here is a person in power who, despite “baseless, personal and dangerous” attacks, continues to uphold and defend our democracy.

And although I am grateful he is the attorney general of the United States, I cannot help wondering how different events might have been had he been appointed to the Supreme Court. Our country needs justices who believe in and embody integrity, courage and “an unwavering commitment to the fair and impartial application of our laws.”

Ann Sundt, Garrett Park, Md.