Image Credit: screenshot/YouTube 
Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany (Wisc.) confronted a witness for the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agency (ATF) about why Hunter Biden is not behind bars after lying on his firearm background check form, a felony crime.
During a House hearing to debate the constitutionality of a new pistol brace rule on Thursday, Tiffany put Everytown for Gun Safety’s federal legal director Rob Wilcox into a corner.
“If a person lies on form 4473 and is a user of unlawful drugs, you can get between 5 to 10 years for that. Is that correct?” Tiffany asked Wilcox.
Wilcox responded, “I believe Congress changed the sentence last Congress…up to 15 years.”
Republican Rep. asks ATF if lying on their federal Background check is illegal.
ATF: “Yes. 15 years in jail if you do that.”
Republican Rep. Tiffany: “So why is Hunter Biden not in Prison?”
***All Hell Breaks Loose***
Gottem pic.twitter.com/aXYQW2GBXR
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 23, 2023
Tiffany followed up: “Why hasn’t Hunter Biden been prosecuted for that crime that he committed?”
Wilcox responded that he “can’t comment” on the Hunter case because he doesn’t know “the facts of that case.”
The facts are simple. Biden had violated federal law by lying about his drug history while filling out Form 4473 for a gun purchase in 2018.
Punishment includes fines up to $250,000 and/or ten years imprisonment, but as Wilcox noted, the punishment has been bumped up to 15 years.
Tiffany asked Wilcox, “Who would we talk to to see why this case is not being prosecuted?”
At that point, a Democrat called a point of order to claim that Tiffany’s remarks were not “relevant.”
Tiffany shot back, “I understand why you don’t want Mr. Wilcox to answer that question. It is very clear. Because there’s a duel system of justice in America. That’s what’s going on right now and everyone is talking about it.”
Hunter Biden is currently under federal investigation over his shady foreign business dealings as revealed by his so-called Laptop From Hell.
Watch the full Congressional hearing:
Part I
Part II