Legal scholar Jonathan Turley pointed out how Hunter Biden's newest interview pokes a hole in one of his legal defense arguments.

On Monday, Axios published an interview with the first son, who connected his fight for sobriety to the future of American democracy and to helping his father, President Joe Biden, defeat Donald Trump.

"Most importantly, you have to believe that you're worth the work, or you'll never be able to get sober. But I often do think of the profound consequences of failure here," Hunter said of his sobriety. "I have something much bigger than even myself at stake. We are in the middle of a fight for the future of democracy."

According to Axios, Hunter identified May 17, 2019, as his "initial sobriety date."

But that's a problem for Hunter's legal defense as his lawyers prepare to keep him out of jail after he was indicted on felony firearm charges for allegedly lying on federal paperwork about being a drug user.

Turley explained:

The admission, however, reaffirms what has long been known. Hunter’s recovery came long after he signed the form. The Firearm Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473, expressly asked if he was an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance. He answered that he was not. The date was October 12, 2018.

Previously, Hunter’s counsel [Abbe] Lowell pushed a defense that the statement was truthful because Hunter may have been sober at that time. Lowell maintained that “at the time that he purchased this gun, I don’t think there’s evidence that that’s when he was suffering.” Lowell said that Biden had already emerged from rehabilitation when he signed the form.

Even worse for Hunter, Turley predicted that special counsel David Weiss may use Hunter's interview and admission against him.

"It would not be surprising if this interview finds its way into filings by the government as the court considers defense pre-trial motions," Turley wrote.

Hunter has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Hunter's attorney, Abbe Lowell, has twice asked a federal judge to dismiss the case, arguing his client is the victim of "selective prosecution" that is tainted by politics. Lowell, moreover, has argued the prosecution is unconstitutional and violates the Second Amendment.

Weiss, however, has denied Lowell's allegations of selective prosecution, describing it as a "conspiracy theory."

"Left with the inconvenient truth of trying to explain how this could happen during the Biden Administration, the defendant suggests that evil motives are lurking deep within the Department of Justice," Weiss wrote in a court filing last month. "This theory is a fiction designed for a Hollywood script."

"The charges in this case are not trumped up or because of former President Trump — they are instead a result of the defendant’s own choices and were brought in spite of, not because of, any outside noise made by politicians," he added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!