‘They are obviously conflicted’: Report claiming two judges overseeing Hunter Biden’s trials were appointed by Trump draws Internet’s attention

WASHINGTON, DC: Hunter Biden will go on trial next week for gun charges, and again in September for tax accusations. This will make it the first time in American history that the son of a sitting president is set to go on trial, as per Politico.

Notably, there are many similarities between Maryellen Noreika of Wilmington, Delaware, and Mark Scarsi of Los Angeles, the two federal judges who will oversee the criminal cases against Hunter.

Both were appointed by former President Donald Trump and had the support of the senators in their home states who lean blue. Despite having only presided over a small number of trials during their brief tenure on the bench, both seem to be harsh sentence givers.

Reports claim two judges overseeing Hunter Biden’s trials were appointed by Donald Trump

By strange coincidence, they dedicated their years in private practice to the relatively esoteric field of patent law. The last commonality points to the judges' shared technical attention to detail and their selection of a comparatively apolitical practice area as young attorneys.

But Noreika and Scarsi will each be overseeing the most contentious political case of their professional lives. Noreika will open the trial on Monday where Hunter faces allegations that he obtained a pistol unlawfully while under the influence of drugs.

Notably, Judge Mark Scarsi in Los Angeles will preside over the hearings in the case where Biden is said to have neglected to file his taxes from 2016 to 2019. The tax case was supposed to start on June 20, but it was recently moved to September 5.

Between them, Noreika and Scarsi have fewer than ten years of judicial experience. Based on a Politico analysis of the criminal dockets of the two judges, each has presided over very few criminal trials. However, both jurists have dealt with situations that have similarities to Biden's.

Moreover, Scarsi has given years in prison sentences to persons who broke tax regulations. Furthermore, Noreika was much harsher on the defendant than the prosecution had intended when she sentenced the defendant on a firearms offense that was identical to Biden's.

Before all of that, Noreika and Scarsi were both intellectual property attorneys for law firms, defending businesses in patent litigation. It's no accident that two of Biden's judges have backgrounds in patent law.

Patent attorneys handle intricate, technical cases, and they sometimes have unusual backgrounds (Scarsi was formerly an engineer; Noreika holds a master's degree in biology). In contrast to public interest attorneys or prosecutors, they are not likely to have handled politically-sensitive cases, as per the Politico report.

Internet weighs in as reports claim judges overseeing Hunter’s trials were Trump appointees

Many people online commented as reports claimed two judges overseeing Hunter Biden’s trials were Donald Trump appointees.

One user said, "What's the problem? I thought nobody was above the law."

Another said, "I can't imagine why a plea bargain can't be done in this trial. The previous one failed because they tried to slip a fast one by the judge, but a case like this rarely carries much punishment for a first offender. The tax case is another matter, but this one doesn't really need a trial."

One comment read, "So, because they were appointed by republicans they are obviously conflicted and should resign from the cases because they can’t possibly be objective. Right Trumpers?"

Another user stated "So why are the people that were making excuses for Trump by saying its just paperwork issues no big deal but now are all for prosecuting Hunter for paper work issues? Sounds like both were wrong."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.