Hunter Biden compares self to a Romanov, a migrant child and a Greek tragedy in delusional court filing

Hunter Biden is comparable to children in Japanese internment camps, to undocumented immigrants, to the murdered descendants of the Tsar.

At least that’s what he argues in a new court filing in his federal gun case, which presents Hunter as one of the most tragic figures since the fall of Troy. Literally.

In a brief that borders on delusional, Biden’s lawyers say the son of the president who burned through millions from influence peddling is comparable to all those unfortunate and destitute souls.

While the media has endlessly covered how Donald Trump arguments are over-the-top in issues such as immunity, there appears to be comparably little interest in the president’s son’s self-aggrandizing demand for dismissal of his criminal charges.

One of the filings main arguments is that Hunter Biden is being selectively prosecuted because of his father.

Hunter profited massively from the Biden name, but now, his lawyer Abbe Lowell argues, he’s suffering from the “burden” of parentage.

To back up this argument, Lowell cites Plyler v. Doe, a case involving the providing of free education to the children of illegal immigrants, to say that the Constitution, “prevents the government from inflicting harm on children for the conduct of their parents.”

That’s right, Joe Biden is like an undocumented migrant father who carried his kid over the border for a better life.

One can only imagine the press response to any comparison of the Trump children to migrant children.

Hunter also cites cases involving children born out of wedlock in need of court protection. The argument is particularly ironic since Hunter Biden fought to prevent his daughter Navy Joan from using his last name.

Perhaps the most insulting analogy is to the treatment of children in Japanese internment camps.

Hunter quotes the dissent in the infamous Korematsu v. United States in describing how the government in that case was attempting “to make an otherwise innocent act a crime merely because this prisoner is the son of parents as to whom he had no choice, and belongs to a race from which there is no way to resign.”

It is not exactly the image that comes to mind in photos of Hunter in high-priced hotels surrounded by prostitutes and a Smörgåsbord of narcotics.

It then gets even weirder. Hunter tells the court that it is precisely “great privilege” that makes children like him “the target of animus for that very reason . . . History is replete with children of political figures being abducted and assassinated literally (e.g., murder of Romanov children by Russian revolutionaries) or figuratively (e.g., Odysseus murdering the son of Crown Prince Hector when sacking Troy).”

There seems to be no victim in history who was not a precursor to Hunter.

At one point, they suggest that prosecuting Hunter for a gun charge is similar to Joe McCarthy forcing a senator to retire by threatening to reveal that his son was homosexual.

Of course, that analogy omits that Hunter wrote a book about his conduct and that this is a gun charge of the type that his own father pushed for strict enforcement.

Nevertheless, this twisted historical reference allowed counsel to remind the court that Roy Cohn worked for Joe McCarthy and later for Donald Trump. Of course, Robert Kennedy also worked for Joe McCarthy, but the Cohn connection was somehow relevant to Hunter lying on a gun form.

Moreover, it is hard to see the selective prosecution in a case that resulted from a sweetheart deal collapsing in open court after a prosecutor admitted that he had never seen such a generous deal.

As his father once said, “no one f–ks with a Biden.” Whistleblowers have testified that Hunter avoided prosecution for years precisely because he was a Biden.

Still, the motion is worth reading for its unrivaled chutzpah.

Hunter even cites to Article III, Section 3 in claiming that he is being punished for his father’s position. He suggests that the Framers would have been appalled after they sought to prohibit “the common law ‘Corruption of Blood’ penalty that would destroy inheritance rights of children based on their parent’s crimes.”

Of course, the only corruption of the blood evident in the broader scandal is the corruption of influence peddling by the Biden family for years. For the moment, it is the crimes of the son, not the father, that demands answers in Delaware.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.