It was little remarked upon when, two weeks ago, a signal example of moral error in political analysis found Nicholas Kristof — fresh off of failing to qualify for the Oregon state ballot in the 2022 Democratic gubernatorial primary — back on the New York Times op-ed page with a remarkable thesis titled “The Real Lesson of the Hunter Biden Saga.” By his lights, it’s about President Joe Biden, and how he “modeled the parental love and support that can save lives.”

Kristof’s analysis of Hunter Biden’s recent plea agreement with the feds and how Père Biden has handled his errant son seems to have been primarily inspired by a belief that the Beatles were significant ethical philosophers, because it boils down to “and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.” In a remarkable work of partisan deflection where it isn’t saccharine, he prattles on for 16 purple paragraphs built around the thesis that Hunter’s story is really one of addiction redeemed by fatherly love, which should become a new political crusade. As to the elder Biden child’s misdeeds?

1) Hunter acted inappropriately to monetize his proximity to the White House, just as Donald Trump and members of his family did; and 2) Joe Biden acted honorably (although I do think it was a mistake to take Hunter to China on Air Force Two in 2013 when he was pursuing business there, and Biden was flatly wrong to say in May that “my son has done nothing wrong”).

So, to summarize: given the fact that Joe Biden is such an honorable man — except, well, for that patently dishonest thing he did — we shouldn’t worry about any of this “minor graft” involving foreign nations because this is, when you really think about it, actually a beautiful and instructive redemption story about the power of a good father to redeem his child from drug addiction. That prodigal son has paid his dues and is on the straight path now, thanks to the power of redemptive love as well as convenient access to elite-level medical care and services.

You won’t believe what happened next.

In one of God’s occasional streaks of narrative benevolence, a mere week later a bunch of cocaine was found in the White House. First they had to evacuate the building over the July 4 weekend, an event with almost zero initial media coverage. Soon it emerged that “white powder” had been found on the premises. Then that “white powder” became “cocaine.” And then, friends, that cocaine started moving. Like an inchworm, it steadily seemed to migrate its way in media reports from “outside, on the premises” to the indoors. The next report said it was found “outside a checkpoint,” as if a random visitor showed up for a West Wing tour like a third-act Scorsese film protagonist and made a series of increasingly poor snap decisions. Only the most stonehearted among us could fail to chuckle as the Little Stash That Could then progressed further through the White House in media updates, to a much more tightly secured place near the Situation Room. I assume the next “clarification” will be that the cocaine found near the Situation Room was actually found there laid out in several neat lines.

The whole story, sordid though it is, is a diversion. It is ridiculously premature to conclude it has anything to do with Hunter Biden merely because he happens to be a notorious recidivist drug felon. (It is particularly foolish when Occam’s Razor dictates that the most likely culprit in Washington, D.C., is the guy literally already named “Cocaine Mitch.”) What is not premature to conclude is that Hunter Biden is a rotten human being for reasons wholly unrelated to drug use and that Joe Biden is doing something far worse than merely hosting him at the White House; he is actively participating in his cruelties and hypocrisies.

Because for all of Kristof’s eagerness to discuss and set aside Hunter Biden’s criminal charges, he was too early to address the stink arising from every aspect of Hunter’s settlement agreement with Lunden Roberts, the Arkansas mother of his illegitimate child. Leave aside the disgrace of formally negotiating that his daughter cannot legally use the Biden name. But did you hear about the second aspect of the settlement agreement? Roberts is primarily being paid not in money, but in Hunter Biden paintings.

Her parents ended a yearslong court battle over child support on Thursday, agreeing that Mr. Biden, who has embarked on a second career as a painter whose pieces have been offered for as much as $500,000 each, would turn over a number of his paintings to his daughter in addition to providing a monthly support payment. The little girl will select the paintings from Mr. Biden, according to court documents.

Yes, the paintings that were universally mocked as an obvious attempt to raise money for Biden via “undisclosed” bidders. It’s amazing how the Times — which has an unfortunate habit of missing points like these — does not bother to explain the significance of the settlement being paid in paintings. They are meant to be converted into cash via the dark-art-buying market, and one might be forgiven for suspecting that, when these paintings are “sold” they will . . . garner something significantly above market value, and be purchased by someone out of less than strictly artistic interest.

Finally, let’s also not ignore the fact that Hunter’s father — avuncular old Grandpa Joe himself, that paragon of patriarchal warmth and love, a president who insists he speaks to his grandchildren every single day — isn’t just tacitly endorsing this flagrantly corrupt nonsense; he also has his staff under orders to pretend in his presence that he has only six grandchildren, not seven. As Megan McArdle of the Washington Post points out, it’s a singularly revolting act of rejection for a man who claims that blood and family matter more than anything else and who has built his personal political brand around the family tragedies in his life.

It is more evidence that, as I pointed out the other day, Joe Biden is not necessarily a good person and that personal suffering does not confer moral virtue. The best possible spin on the president’s actions is that, in his desire to cling to his remaining son, he is indulging his every terrible instinct. There are worse interpretations available.