Even if Hunter's behavior was wrong, voters don't really care about how that would impact a Biden presidency.
The argument
"Conservatives are rightly outraged by Twitter’s efforts to suppress the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s alleged emails, and the mainstream media’s failure to take the story seriously. Republicans in Congress are right to investigate. And the Republican National Committee is right to file a complaint against Twitter with the Federal Election Commission for censoring the story. But here is what President Trump needs to understand: This election is not going to turn on Hunter Biden. While the story might energize the president’s base, it won’t help him win over voters who are not already supporting his reelection. Americans already know that Hunter Biden was flying around the world cashing in on his father’s name and public office, and that Joe Biden allowed him to do so. How they feel about that is already baked into their votes. Right now, in the midst of a pandemic-induced recession, they care more about their own families than Joe Biden’s family."
Premises
Counter-arguments
Critics reply that a candidate's handling of family financial dealings that trade on his office is a legitimate window into character and potential conflicts of interest, so Hunter's actions are not 'entirely independent' of Joe. If the elder Biden knew of and permitted dealings that leveraged his name, that bears on his judgment. They point out that the passage itself concedes Joe Biden 'allowed him to do so,' which grants a connection rather than establishing independence. And whether the story swings votes is a separate question from whether it is relevant: electoral impact doesn't determine whether the conduct legitimately bears on the campaign, so 'it won't change the election' doesn't show the actions should carry no weight.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] A candidate's handling of family financial dealings that trade on his office is a legitimate window into character and conflicts of interest, so Hunter's actions are not 'entirely independent' of Joe. [Rejecting P2] The passage itself concedes Joe Biden 'allowed him to do so,' which grants a connection rather than establishing independence. [Rejecting P3] Whether the story swings votes is separate from whether it is relevant; electoral impact doesn't determine whether the conduct legitimately bears on the campaign.