What scandal are you referring to…?
But I don't think anyone is ignoring it. Everyone is aware Hunter has had a troubled life and made bad choices. Everyone I've spoken to about this, even the left leaning, is of the opinion that if he broke the law he should face punishment. No one is on the other side of the issue here. The truly newsworthy bit is that he's been charged and facing consequences which, if we look at past presidential children, is the outlier.
He has also agreed to enter pre-trial diversion program related to the gun charges.
I have to disagree. The defining characteristic of Watergate was the illegal (break-ins to steal political opponents' strategies and psychiatrists files) activities by a political organization (CREEP[0]) that were then covered up by those at the highest levels of the executive branch.
The issue wasn't that there were recordings of such a cover up, it was the cover up that was the problem. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that something isn't illegal/immoral if you don't get caught.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_the_Re-Election_...
My apologies. I wasn't clear that I was responding to this:
The defining characteristic of Watergate was the audio tapes, so this has to
be a reference to the "Bring some Cokes in, please" recording.
There's no way that could be Watergate-squared.
While there are some similarities between Watergate and the current situation, specifically a lack of ethics, enormous hubris and that it involves a (former) US President among other things, the cases are quite different and should be treated as such.
It's certainly plausible that the junior Biden may well have offered "access to his father" as a lure to obtain pecuniary benefit.
And while the optics are terrible, I'd note that the current US president held no elective or appointed office in any government when the telegram message that's been cited to "corroborate" the "influence peddling" allegations.
As such, It's not clear to me what, if anything, the senior Biden could have done, at that time, in that context.
I'm not defending anyone here, nor am I trying to skewer anyone. Rather, the narrative presented just doesn't make sense to me given the time frames involved.