Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

America’s Partisan Hypocrisy: Hunter Biden’s Crimes vs. Trump’s Business Conflicts

Independent voters cut through selective outrage, contrasting criminal convictions with constitutional conflicts.


Opinion

America’s Partisan Hypocrisy: Hunter Biden’s Crimes vs. Trump’s Business Conflicts

political polarization

Getty Images / Rob Dobi

Roughly 43% of U.S. adults identify themselves as politically independent. However, according to Gallup polling, only 7-12% of Americans are considered “truly” independent, meaning they do not lean toward either the Democratic or Republican Party.

This small group of genuine independent voters is most likely the ones who see issues from both sides, such as the Hunter Biden-Ukraine business dealings versus the Trump family business conflict situation.


Let’s explore the selective outrage and partisan hypocrisy that have been going on since 2014 and the ensuing partisan divide.

Hunter Biden and Ukraine

Hunter Biden joined the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma in 2014 while his father, Joe Biden, was vice president. Hunter was deeply involved in Ukraine policymaking, which created the appearance of a conflict.

Republicans built a narrative that Hunter’s role represented deep corruption and influence peddling by the Biden family. However, America’s policy toward Ukraine never changed.

A GOP-led Senate investigation concluded only that Hunter’s position was problematic and awkward for U.S. anti-corruption efforts.

Trump family business conflicts

During Donald Trump’s 2017-2021 presidency, he retained ownership of his global business empire, which allowed numerous conflicts of interest to arise among eight Trump-branded hotels/resorts, 15 golf courses, and around 30 licensing deals (CIO Times). That business ownership still prevails in Trump 2.0.

Ethics watchdogs tracked government and lobbyists' spending at Trump properties during his first presidency, foreign trademarks granted to Trump companies, and ongoing or renewed business ventures in the Middle East, raising serious questions about foreign leverage over U.S. policy.

A lawsuit filed by 29 Senators and 186 House Democrats alleged Mr. Trump violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause.

Key differences at a glance

Hunter Biden held no American government office and served on a private board at one foreign company. Formal GOP-led investigations found the situation was only problematic, and the GOP’s intensity of criticism included impeachment rhetoric against his father.

Donald Trump was president, and his children were senior advisers and had ongoing control over global branding, real estate, and licensing. Ethics groups warned of pervasive, structural conflicts that touched on many policy areas. Republicans have not criticized Mr. Trump about violating the emoluments clause during either Trump 1.0 or 2.0 presidencies.

The truly independent registered voters can easily see that Hunter Biden’s case dealt with criminal charges, while Mr. Trump and his family business issues centered on ethics and constitutional questions and concerns.

Hunter Biden’s criminal case

Hunter Biden was convicted in federal court on three felony gun charges for lying about his drug use on a 2018 firearm purchase form. He also pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges in September 2024. However, Hunter received a full presidential pardon from his father, President Joe Biden, which spared Hunter from sentencing and potential prison time.

President Biden’s pardon of his son was highly controversial and one of 80 full clemency pardons issued during his 2021-2025 term of office. Mr. Trump issued 144 full clemency pardons during his 2017-2021 presidency, and over 1,500 pardons have occurred since Jan. 20 (Al Jazeera).

Hunter’s case deals with straightforward criminal statutes of a personal nature rather than an alleged abuse of public office.

Donald Trump and the Trump family's constitutional and ethics issues

Donald Trump’s situation is legally distinct, with lawsuits and watchdog reports focusing on whether he violated the emoluments clause by continuing to own businesses that received $160 million from foreign and domestic government clients. At the same time, he was president (CREW). On Jan. 25, 2021, the Supreme Court identified the emolument lawsuits as moot because Trump was no longer president.

Trump’s children and in-laws held formal government roles in Trump 1.0 and in Trump’s 2.0 administration, all the while maintaining or pursuing foreign business interests. This has prompted legal and ethics complaints about conflicts and potential violations of anti-nepotism norms. Mr. Trump has argued that conflict-of-interest rules do not apply to him as president.

Americans may not know that 577 legal challenges to Trump administration actions have already been filed in the 330 days of Trump 2.0. With 1,131 days of Trump 2.0 to go, stay tuned as violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause may again see the light of day.

Core legal differences

In summary, Hunter Biden has concrete criminal convictions. Mr. Trump faces ongoing civil, constitutional, and ethics challenges over his business dealings and foreign payments, with watchdogs alleging serious illegality but, to date, no equivalent criminal verdicts against him.

The tale of selective outrage is well understood by the 7-12% of truly independent registered voters. They realize the Hunter Biden case was a personal matter that’s closed, whereas there’s a lot of time – and possible actions – left before Trump 2.0 comes to a close.

It’s a sad commentary that the remaining 88-93% of voters can’t see issues from both sides; partisan hypocrisy prevails in America.

Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.


Read More

Democratic Presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) holds his first presidential campaign rally at Brooklyn College on March 02, 2019 in Brooklyn, New York.

A lobbyist who worked for both Bernie Sanders and Fortune 500 clients explains what democratic socialist wins mean for business, and how to prepare.

VIEW press/Getty Images

I Campaigned for Bernie Sanders Then Lobbied for Amazon

In 2016, my political outreach company, Firehouse Phones, worked on the presidential campaign of a democratic socialist. It was one of many campaigns my firm touched, but that one stays on my resume for a reason: it taught me more about how persuasion actually works than any client engagement before or since.

Today I run Ohio River South, a government affairs firm focused on the nation's fastest-growing region — the American South. Over the past decade we've advocated for nearly two dozen Fortune 500 companies — Amazon in my earlier lobbying years, and later growing a client roster that included Alphabet, Microsoft, General Motors, United Healthcare, and Capital One.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House
The white house with green lawn and trees
Photo by Josh on Unsplash

The Politics of Gratitude: Why Washington Punishes the Loyalty It Cannot Price

On a Sunday night in August, Senator Jon Ossoff told a campaign rally in Atlanta that President Trump would rather build his ballroom and “travel with Natalie” than do his job. He never used her last name. He did not need to. Natalie Harp, the White House aide known to colleagues as Trump’s “human printer” for trailing him with a portable printer and transcribing his social-media dictation, had become a punchline before most Americans knew who she was.

The backlash arrived within hours. White House officials accused Ossoff of insinuating an affair; Republican Rep. Brandon Gill noted that Harp survived bone cancer only because the Right to Try Act, which Trump signed in 2018, let her seek an experimental treatment outside the normal approval process, and dismissed any other reading of the moment as unfair. Weeks earlier, Harp had been at the center of a far more consequential story: in July, she was one of a handful of aides, alongside the defense secretary and two senior staffers, chosen to accompany Trump on a covert switch of aircraft as he left a security summit in Turkey after officials detected a credible Iranian threat, while most of the traveling delegation stayed behind on a decoy plane. That is the real proximity Ossoff's line was needling. Then came a detail that complicated the story further: Trump had personally given Harp and several other aides cash gifts of $45,000 apiece, which a former federal ethics official called troublesome, since money on that scale can leave a recipient feeling indebted to whoever signs the check.

Keep ReadingShow less
A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed behind U.S. President Donald Trump.

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cartography of Convenience: Why Rushed Renaming Erodes Public Trust

In tough economic times, governments often reach for the easiest kind of progress: a new name on an old sign. Wage stagnation, inflation, crumbling roads, and rising rents are hard problems that take years and real money to fix. Renaming a street, a lake, or a strait is not. It costs a fraction as much and lets officials point to something they “did.” A new name never fixes a pothole or lowers a grocery bill. This year offered an unusually rich catalogue of the habit, reaching from a city council in Texas to a wartime waterway in the Persian Gulf.

A Concept Borrowed From the Cremation Ground

Indian philosophy has an old idea called shmashana vairagya, describing the sudden clarity a person feels standing at a cremation ground, when ordinary ambitions look small. The feeling fades once the mourner goes home. Public policy has its own version of this cycle. In the raw hours after a tragedy, a scandal, or a surge of national feeling, officials decide, sometimes within a single social media post, what belongs on a map or a sign forever. The emotion passes in hours. The bill, when there is one, stays for years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on February 6, 2026.

(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

A Demagogue in the White House: Will the Guardrails Hold?

A demagogue does not seize all power at once. He takes it piece by piece.

In Trump’s second administration, those pieces accumulated in plain sight. The president generated so much disruption and noise that Americans struggled to keep pace. Each new controversy displaced the last, obscuring a more consequential story: the steady accumulation of presidential power.

Keep ReadingShow less