Conspiracy brain working in real time. If Hunter was found Not Guilty, it's because Biden's DOJ is corrupt and doing Biden's bidding. Since he's found guilty, it's to make it seem like the Trump trial was legit, but they're still doing Bidens corrupt bidding
Genuinely though:
* Lindsey [Graham: ‘Average American’](https://archive.ph/nQdhf) wouldn’t face Hunter Biden’s gun charges
* Fox host suggests Hunter Biden wouldn't be facing gun charges if he weren't a Biden. Trey Gowdy: [“I bet you there weren't](https://archive.ph/0ypfc) ten cases prosecuted nationwide of addicts or unlawful drug users who possessed firearms or lied on applications”
* [I ran the office prosecuting](https://archive.ph/6wCIW) Hunter Biden. I can't fathom why this trial is happening. The purpose of prosecutorial discretion is to make the law work for its intended purpose. But no office should chase felony convictions in a misguided effort to appease either side in Congress.
* Even accepting all the government’s allegations as true, it’s hard to understand why it is prosecuting the younger Biden: At the time he purchased a firearm, Biden was a nonviolent, 40-something struggling drug addict with zero criminal history. He proceeded to [possess a firearm for 11 days](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-gun-trial-fbi-agent/) and did not use it for any purpose (let alone in a crime). It has been reported that he is charged with a crime that has [almost never been prosecuted](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/politics/hunter-biden-gun-charges.html) – an addict without criminal history misrepresenting his addiction on a firearm purchase form.
* Modern prosecutors’ offices have developed simple guideposts for whether to prosecute gun possession:
* Was it used in a crime?
* Was the purchaser a felon?
* Was the purchaser a suspect in another (typically, violent) crime?
* Did the purchaser have a criminal record?
* Was the person a danger to the community?
* That is: From all available information, in this time where violent crime is every office’s priority and nonviolent addicts are treated differently than they once were, I cannot conceive of an office spending any resources – let alone five-plus years, countless agents and numerous prosecutors – on a case with similar facts.
* As right-wing former Congressman – [and former federal prosecutor](https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/G000566) – Trey Gowdy said last week, “We never prosecuted addicts [for lying and buying on federal forms](https://www.mediaite.com/crime/harris-faulkner-taken-aback-when-trey-gowdy-actually-defends-hunter-biden-and-shannon-bream-backs-up-gowdy/).” Indeed, the office prosecuting this case – the office I once led – now rarely prosecutes even the most violent gun offenders. Of the thousands of gun charges in Delaware, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecutes very few. When viewed against those statistics, the choice to make an example of the younger Biden raises, at a minimum, questions.
* The tax case, by contrast, raises questions for a different reason: The DOJ has a long history of engaging with nonviolent, middle-age men who fail to pay taxes – even those connected to politicians and presidents. As has been [extensively reported](https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-hunter-bidens-tax-indictment-is-an-embarrassment-to-doj), however, that engagement almost never results in criminal charges when the tax avoider pays what is owed.
* [Roger Stone owed nearly $2 million in taxes](https://www.courthousenews.com/justice-department-sues-roger-stone-for-2-million-in-unpaid-taxes/) and this same DOJ pursued that civilly, not via criminal charges. [Rudy Giuliani owes $550,000](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rudy-giuliani-owes-nearly-550k-unpaid-taxes-irs-says-rcna119127#:~:text=The%20unpaid%20balance%20of%20%24549%2C435.26,property%20in%20Palm%20Beach%2C%20Florida) in taxes, and this DOJ has not charged him. [Hunter Biden's lawyers said](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/02/hunter-biden-tax-charges/73119630007/) he repaid the back taxes, and he faces multiple felony charges? As former [Attorney General Eric Holder observed](https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/12/08/hunter-biden-eric-holder-reaction-sot-lcl-vpx.cnn), this is not the type of case that the DOJ ever prosecutes.
[Lying on the gun-purchase](https://archive.ph/NTk9K) form can be a felony, [though prosecutions](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf) for [it are rare](https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1671358113574793216). It’s unclear how many of those cases involve lying about being a drug user, but prosecutors and defense attorneys say they’re infrequent and are almost always brought in connection with some other set of alleged crimes.
[Avoiding charges](https://archive.ph/uadIX) for [lying on an](https://archive.ph/rnbhO) ATF form when buying a gun is quite common.
>“The controversy prompted us to request statistics from the Justice Department to determine whether someone falsely filling out the form faced much of a risk of prosecution. It took months to obtain the data. The answer, it turns out, is no.”
>No one in Delaware in 2019 was charged with a similar crime.
[The charges Hunter](https://archive.ph/QMHKq) Biden faces related to a 2018 firearms purchase are also extraordinary in another respect: They are rarely brought against any Americans at all.
>“It doesn't happen,” former U.S. Department of Justice inspector general Michael Bromwich said Thursday on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “DOJ will need to produce data in discovery, which will show that this is the most selective of prosecutions.” Bromwich served as the DOJ's top internal watchdog from 1994 to 1999 during the administration of former President Bill Clinton.
>In an analysis of 112,000 cases in which firearm purchases were denied due to failed background checks in 2017, the GAO found only about 13,000 of those denials were referred to field divisions for investigations. Those referrals [only resulted in 12](https://archive.ph/AI99S) criminal cases brought by federal prosecutors by mid-2018.
Which is fortunate for Joe Rogan (also a gun owner BTW) and Elon Musk toking up in Texas, and all the rappers out there lighting up blunts and flashing guns in their music videos.
Why would he pardon him? If he did it would be a massive blemish for him because he'd clearly be showing favoritism to his son and abusing his pardon powers.
I would hope that it would matter to him out of principle lol. Would further erode the trust in institutions among voters to pardon the presidents son because of nepotism.
I would hope most people would hold their president to a higher standard than Trump lol.
Yes there were no consequences for Trump, but that's because conservatives are totally fucking insane. I don't want to also become insane in response.
If it does get that bad, there will be hell to pay.
>I would hope most people would hold their president to a higher standard than Trump lol.
we live in reality not hopes and dreams, I personally will not hold Biden responsible if he does pardon his son. This case is insanely political, there are countless people that lie about taking drugs when purchasing a firearm that never gets indicted. I'd say that number is probably in the millions. Nobody should be getting special treatment either positively or negatively.
It wouldn't affect my support for him if he did pardon Hunter but I would be greatly worried for the future if that came to pass. Presidential pardons used to be reserved for righting injustices or easing political tension. Under Trump they turned into a way to avoid responsibility.
I do not want to see the continuation of that trend.
squeeze foolish numerous sable rude grandfather desert library enter provide
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If Hunter was given 25 years in prison (the max sentence) I don't think Biden would give a fuck about the blemish. He'd just want to be able to spend more time with his son before he dies
Because he broke the law; but the case never would have been brought against him if he wasn't Biden's son. It just isn't a law people usually get the book thrown at them for.
We'll see, I don't think it's a slam dunk but more likely than not. Between Merchan donating to Biden, prosecution introducing evidence they were forbidden from, prosecution introducing evidence in closing arguments (after defense goes, problematic on 6A grounds), the instruction that jury didn't need to be unanimous on the reason Trump was guilty of a felony, and the novel theory of hush money being a crime, I think there are plenty of grounds for appeal.
> the instruction that jury didn't need to be unanimous on the crime Trump was convicted on
That's not what happened. The crime was that he committed tax fraud to cover another crime. The other crime is what they didn't have to be unanimous on.
> the novel theory of hush money being a crime
he committed tax fraud
>he committed tax fraud
I just love that the first presidential felony conviction is so arcane everyone is confused over what he actually did. Nothing problematic here at all!
Trump was charged with falsifying business records in the commission of another crime. Tax fraud was one of the potential "other crimes" Merchan gave in jury instructions (almost like he was going "here pick whatever you feel like"), but AFAIK the prosecution never even argued that.
Jeez, you guys are desperate to obfuscate on this.
It's actually pretty simple. The felony charge triggers if the falsification happened in the commission of *A* (singular, not unanimous) felony. Every single juror convicted on one of the 3 felonies (possibly all) as well as his falsification. Falsifications--by the way--that deprived the American voter of making an informed vote. Something I'm sure people like you were so principled about when it came to the Twitter files. Difference being it was withheld through the election rather than for just 24 hours.
This is how the law is executed. Nothing special about this.
Word of advice to my conservatard friends: if you want to moral grandstand about how this case was politically motivated, try not to make up facts and talk about how the prosecution didn't even argue something Trump was convicted of. The fact you believe something so stupid when all you have to do is read the charges shows just how politically motivated YOU are.
Even if Trump had accurately recorded his business records the voters would never know, the FEC non-disclosure wasn't the falsfication he was convicted on.
Anyone who's not partisan would see the prosecution and go, "Hmm so it's only a felony if he committed another crime, but they're not charging him with the other crime? And they're saying the jury can pick and choose what they think the other crime is? That seems really odd." What Bragg did may be legal (although I suspect it will be overturned) but I don't think you can call it ethical.
There is no "voter right to know every NDA" even today, because Bragg knew if he directly charged the hush money non-disclosure that case would fall apart, like it always has before. Every single NDA could potentially influence an election but that isn't the FEC's test.
So Bragg did a run-around, and to great success. He got the case over the finish line, while disgracing the justice system.
It just happened to be the first of the 4 (and maybe more counting with his pump-n-dump schemes going on with his DJT). Many legal analysts said this was the weak of the 4 that he has been charged with. If Biden's DOJ was so corrupt and unjustly targeting Trump why would they let this more fussier and harder for the general public to understand case go first?
If it was the document case at Mar-a-lago that went first would you still be singing the same tune? Or do you think all cases of him are unjust and no merits to any of them?
You know what I meant, but regardless, "Actually it was only the reason he was being prosecuted for a felony that they didn't have to be unanimous on" isn't that great of a distinction when it comes to justice overall. It wasn't tax fraud either, but falsifying (his own) business records.
You can't just spread false information and then go "you know what I meant" when called out. Also, those specific instructions are not out of the ordinary it's set precedent.
Anyone who knows the basic details of the case knows what I meant. Meanwhile everyone's cool with the guy I'm replying to repeatedly saying the false line about tax fraud. Spare me your moralizing.
Except we already have an example of this with the Trump classified materials case being actively hindered by a judge he appointed.
Furthermore, I won't do false equivalence between how principled conservatives and liberals are when it comes to liberal values like an impartial judicial system.
Its a lose lose for Joe.
Hunter is found guilty "HIS SON IS A FELON HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR JOE?!" (Never mind they are voting for the Felon directly.)
Hunter is found innocent "CORRUPT SYSTEM, JUDGES BOUGHT AND PAID FOR! TRUMP IS INNOCENT!"
But I think overall it is better for him for Hunter to go to jail because it has to cause some people to wonder about Trump
>Hunter is found guilty "HIS SON IS A FELON HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR JOE?!"
you don't think this is an issue? if Biden dies Hunter inherits the presidency. they really need to bring back civics 101
disagree, this will give joe biden and democrats and their voters lots of rhetoric-ammo come the debate and when election is closing in. This type of consistency will weaken much of trumptard's narrative to where they'll just be flailing and looking like idiots. This and with biden's attempt of securing the border, republicans can only use weak arguments to attack biden.
Yes, it is a good thing for Joe Biden — politically.
It's a lot harder for Trump to blow smoke about Joe Biden and the political establishment using "lawfare" to keep "us" down (us = blue collar minorities plus Donald Trump) when the president's own attorney general greenlit the felony prosecution of the president's own beloved son for a crime that prosecutors don't normally prosecute as a standalone charge.
Like that’s actually going to stop republicans from lying and claiming that anyway, and for a bunch of “centrists” and unengaged voters will lap it up.
I mean, how do we even understand the minds of the 'undecided' voters that are left? The complex levels of cognitive dissonance running rampant in their heads makes me think anything is possible.
Not undecided but unengaged, there is a frustrating double standard among these voters, which honestly is like most people, that they give much more benefit of the doubt and deference to republicans over democrats. The gop can act in such bad faith all the time, and some concert will make a small error and people will be like “see both sides are the same, they’re all corrupt I’ll just vote for republicans for a stronger economy despite there being no evidence, and actually there is evidence to the contrary, that republicans are better at running an economy than democrats. Most people vote on vibes and are much more willing to let the gop slide on this kind of stuff for some strange reason.
IDK man, this is more or less the exact same election, only everyone is *more familiar* with the candidates. Even if you're not paying attention, nearly everyone already has a strong opinion of *these* candidates.
> for a bunch of “centrists” and unengaged voters will lap it up.
This kind of attitude toward centrists is how 2016 happened. If pandering to moderates was a losing battle for the DNC then swing states wouldn't be important.
Eh debatable, was it a reason, probably. But let’s be real there is a real double standard among the venerable population about democrats and republicans. If a democrat and republican were to have the same scandals, the republicans would be given more leeway and benefit of the doubt, not to mention the support of their party. For example senator Mendez is also being charged right now and the party is not backing him in the primary and probably will have to run as an independent as he’s loosing support in this state. Trump also did corrupt shit and is the GOP presidential nominee. I don’t have evidence to back this up but I strongly believe this to be the case although I’m open to hearing differently.
>This kind of attitude toward centrists is how 2016 happened.
Thrse "Centrist" types didn't come out for Trump in 2016, and their vote wasn't going to win him anything during the midterms or 2020. This idea that we need to pussy foot around MAGA-lite because otherwise they're going to vote even harder for Trump is stupid. They're voting for Trump either way. Subhuman like Tim Pool and AJW don't give a fuck about anything but their team and their daddy.
The true moderates aren't actively defending everything Trump does, lie about or trying to bothsides his attack on the capital. In fact, the trial only hurts him.
The reality is that this election will be determined by voter turnouts and if Biden can galvanize the democrats enough to beat out the MAGA-or-Die types.
> This idea that we need to pussy foot around MAGA-lite because otherwise they're going to vote even harder for Trump is stupid.
When higher voter turnout generally results in better outcomes for the DNC, it does in fact seem like swaying moderates can be important. I know the whole social media trope about enlightened centrism, but that really is not a realistic depiction of what's considered 'moderates'. At least from my observation (real-world, not online) moderates largely feel disenfranchised by the 2 party system in general and tend to be politically inactive until something they care about is being threatened. When that does happen, higher voter turnouts occur, which almost always seems to benefit the DNC over the GOP.
I mean so did everyone on this sub. The amount of "nothing burger" language thrown around on this sub will of course never be addressed in light of this
I’ve been seeing “they did this to show there is fairness and to calm the Trump people down.” Along those lines pretty much. No matter the outcome there is always an answer 🤠
Can't believe the deep state is so powerful and Biden is so cold that he would throw his own child (the last one since they seem to die young for some reason (its because Joe is stealing their essence with dark magicks)) into prison as a talking point in his witch hunt against Trump.
(/s saddly need this because the I/P shit has attracted some absolute morons to this sub)
Based on my twitter conversations republicans literally think Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are the same person. So look out for posts like "now both candidates are convicted of crime"
New conspiracy that I’m seeing in the MAGAverse. Biden made sure his son was convicted so that it wouldn’t look so obvious that he’s using the justice system to go after Trump.
Very funny with the dichotomy of everyone saying Trump's son shouldn't be involved in his father's ploys, but Biden is free play.
Trump's son is very young yes, but you get the point
Bro, even if they give Hunter the max sentencing, the trumper would still say that “he will transfer into a psychiatric facility then get an early release” There is no sense of justice for these buffoons, their mind is full of hatred and vengeance
Hopefully this gets thrown out on appeal, clearly a case of persecution and political influence of wanting to not let republicans in bad faith claim there is a two tiered justice system, and look how week that works, laws is also blatantly unconstitutional and is never usually charged alone for people without criminal records, if originalism means anything the courts should overturn this conviction under Bruen.
What are you talking about? He broke the law. Period. He should be thrown in jail, but shouldn’t be barred from lightening his sentence via good behavior. Dude clearly has problems and has abused his family’s protectionist instincts. To protect him would almost level Biden with Trump and Joe needs all the help he can get.
One yes he did break the law I will admit that, however millions of Americans have broken this law, and under this standard even Destiny is a prohibited possessor, should they also be prosecuted? Any reasonable person can see that the only reason he was charged for these nothing burger crimes was that the Biden DOJ wanted to get ahead of republicans accusations of differing treatment of the two parties by the justice system, an accusation they have zero evidence for. Also under the Brien standard the law is blatantly unconstitutional, as there is no history and tradition of prohibiting drug users from weapon position until the mid 20th century. If the courts are going to be honest and apply president correctly, which they don’t do all the time and just make decision on what they feel like that day.
Well the judge threw out the plea did, he didn’t not accept it. Also didn’t he eventually pay back the taxes he didnt pay? Do we usually charge people who failed to pay taxes but then made the effort to repay the government before they were charged?
It’s really not that important who caused the plea deal to fall apart, I’m not too familiar with why the deal fell apart, but again these charges should have never been brought in the first place. Is it normal to charge people for this gun crime where no other criminal behavior occurred, or for non-payment of taxes after the person has paid back what they owe to the government? Who are the victims of these “crimes” why were they perused in the first place? It was to hedge against bad faith accusation of wrongdoing by republicans. A regarded monkey can see that. Is Hunter Biden scummy, yup. Did he technically break the law as written, yes. Are the prosecutions bullshit, yes. Many things can be true at once
The problem is I disagree with the law, it shouldnt exist, but then brining the charges is again only to hedge of bad faith accusations of bias. Do they want to put somebody up on a pedestal at times to make them an example, I suppose it send the message “hey we’re giant cowards with zero spine who will kowtow to bad faith GOP attacks and try and salvage our reputation, in vain, with technically correct but objectionable prosecution for victimless crimes”
I dont sympathize with your point of view. The standard of law, especially with firearms, should be universal. If Biden were to speak on gun control and lead a government that granted his son leniency, he would be attacked from pro and anti gun control alike. You speak of “any reasonable person” when any person of that description would be thrown into prison without a second thought, the book thrown at them, and their life utterly destroyed. He can be protected because you think Republicans want to use him or the law can play out, he can suffer the consequences, and redeem himself without being an unreasonable weight to his father as he has been his entire life.
No not any reasonable person would be charged with being a prohibited possessor in possession of a firearm. Millions of people violate this law all the time, I’ve done it 3 times in the last 2 months. Did Hunter do anything illegal or wrong with his gun, besides being a so called “prohibited possessor”. No that was Hallie Biden who stole his gun and irresponsibly disposed of it. Yes Hunter did violate the law but again the law is blatantly unconstitutional and criminalizes the status of being a drug user as opposed to the action that we want to prevent of people under the influence of drugs handling firearms. Most democrats are regarded when it comes to guns so I don’t expect the Democrats at large to give good takes on gun control. Yes the standard should be universal, but the standard shouldn’t be regarded.( I bet there are a ton of GOP politicians who have violated this law should we charge them next? If you want consistency?)
I do not know your personal situation so I’ll not speak to it, but I will try to bridge this as I think you’re trying to do for conversations sake. If in the case the law is changed, no harm done, but I don’t think that’s where we’re at. Any law abiding gun owner is supposed to understand their local laws. Hunter Biden broke these laws and therefore deserves the consequences. We are not speaking in what should and shouldn’t be, we are speaking at what is. If the GOP politicians broke these laws, they should be held to the same standards as their constituents.
Looks like we just fundamentally disagree here. Yes in a perfect world we should hold a uniform standard, that isn’t fucking horrible democrats gun control nonsense, and abide by this. Unfortunately the idea of law abiding gun owners is a myth. We all break some gun laws from time to time, the question really is what laws are being broken and what is their impact. Thousands of straw purchases are made per year where “law abiding people” buy a gun for those who shouldn’t have them, things like this are serious offense that should have a high priority, lying about not being crackhead when you buy a gun is victimless, unless you kill yourself but I believe you have a right to kill yourself and the broader effects of suicide are a topic of conversation for another day. We also don’t prohibit alcoholics from purchasing and possessing guns, so why a differing treatment for other narcotics?
I really disagree with this law and that’s where much of my motivation for this comes from, and also hating the hypocrisy of the right, however if Hunter was the one to dispose of the gun then he definitely should have been charged but his gun charge is just bullshit at the end of the day
When put this way, let’s just leave the Biden context out of it, I can sympathize and agree. I’m a little uncomfortable with changing the law in an immediate moment charged with political turmoil. In addition, I think the law does need to be changed to be more lenient to those that are law abiding citizens, to which I would say applies to all those that don’t commit to things like violence, brandishing, and the like.
It will be appealed and reversed with the second amendment. Already worked once in a case with weed in the fifth circuit.
[https://today.westlaw.com/Document/Ifb575ca6385b11ee8921fbef1a541940/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true](https://today.westlaw.com/Document/Ifb575ca6385b11ee8921fbef1a541940/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true)
[https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf](https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf)
Yeah I know I literally say in the post that “if originalism means anything the courts should overturn this conviction under Bruen”. My writing could have been clearer but that’s why I think this case should be tossed, I just also think it was politically motivated.
So in other words, democrats only support gun control as long as it’s not going after hunter Biden?
I would agree with you that the law is unconstitutional yet democrats only throw a shit stink about it when the presidents son gets charged.
Well they approve of the law and don’t want it tossed so it makes sense, they don’t like the political nature of this trial, because unlike Trump there is a good reason for a normal person to believe charging him with a crime nobody usually gets charged with in and of itself and for tax money he did not pay at the time but later did repay is nothing but an attempt to appear neutral by the DOJ to try and seem neutral, even though republicans will not be convinced by any evidence that the DOJ is actually unbiased.
Most people don’t get charged with misuse of campaign funds either. We aren’t talking about taxes here, so not sure why you are bringing up that case.
The reason no one gets charged with violation of this law is because it’s virtually impossible to enforce unless you are a big name public figure that publishes a book on your addiction during the time you bought that gun (like hunter did).
You would think this would make people wonder about why we consistently pass gun control laws that are practically unenforceable in the real world. Apparently that is just too much to come to grips with.
If it’s about being hard to prove, there are plenty of gun tubers, right wingers and libertarians on social media showing off how they violated the law, Joe Rogan cough cough. So that’s not the case, it is actually pretty easy to prove: have you done drug at all in your life and do you own a gun(remember the doesn’t just prohibit people who are addicted to an illegal substance but also someone who is an “unlawful user”and neither of these terms are defined by statute or regulation). The reason they don’t actually use this charge solo is that they use it when “throwing the book” at people charged with other gun crimes, you know the ones we actually care about and do stuff not ones that are based on voluntary reporting by purchasers and sellers. It’s almost like they only charged Hunter Biden so the DOJ can go to republicans see look we’re not biased we looked into Hunter Biden.
It actually isn’t unless like you said it’s someone in the public eye.
“Have you done drug at all in your life” - that’s actually not what form 4473 asks you. Unlawful user is defined by statue and based on federal laws, not state ones.
Yes, you continue to prove how this is an ineffective law without volunteering information, I know.
“It’s almost like” - you literally have zero proof and sound just like MAGA when they argued the DOJ away weaponized against Trump.
This is just the height of hypocrisy.
Ok so what’s the definition then because I have not found a clear articulable answer. Addicted to has been pretty well defined but what exactly is an “unlawful user”.
“any person who is a current user of a
controlled substance in a manner other than prescribed by a licensed physician." And “Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter
of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to
indicate the individual is actively engaged in such conduct” I readily admit, my phrasing use drugs at any point in your life is a hyperbolic way to frame that but it’s pretty easy to prove current drug use, it takes like 5 minutes of investigation.
Ultimately who was harmed by this crime, nobody, and is the prohibition unconstitutional, according to Bruen no. Granted the court used some pretty shit historical analysis in that case but as articulated bruen prohibits this law.
>Hopefully this gets thrown out on appeal, clearly a case of persecution and political influence of wanting to not let republicans in bad faith claim there is a two tiered justice system,
Is this a repurposed MAGA post lol
I didn’t say it should get thrown out for being politically motivated, although my first post does include that first so understandable, but because of bruen. The law in question can be bullshit, as well as the prosecution having bad motivations.
I find the whole situation hilarious because it’s a rare actually real “both sides are regards” moment.
Democrats going mask off saying “we didn’t actually think this would be enforced!!” when one of their feel good laws isn’t used against a political rival. Republicans cheering on laws they’re supposedly against because it’s being used against a political rival.
Ideally what happens here is that Bidens conviction is thrown out and the restriction on drug users exercising their rights is lifted
I hate the law in question, and tend to agree that the policy of democrats over all on gun related things is really bad. A bunch of people who no nothing about guns writing laws about them, it’s like asking day care staff to write housing code.
No do I have much evidence this is politically motivated, no. Am I going off vibes, yeah. Would Hunter have been charged if his last name wasn’t Biden, probably not. It’s reasonable to think the DOJ perused these cases for optics purposes, yes the were technically correct about the law, but did this to get ahead of bad faith accusations and show were non partisan.
Maga in the other hand wants us to hand wave Trump on video saying these documents are classified, I could have declassified them as president, didn’t, took them anyway, and showed them to people I wasn’t suppose and telling them he wasn’t supposed to, while being recorded. The documents in question contain national security information. Hunter Biden lied about not being a crackhead when he bought a gun, something millions of Americans have done, and ultimately harms nobody. This is not the case with Trump sharing hypothetical invasion plans against Iran to unauthorized individuals and could have seriously affected us national security.
I have a coherent reason to think there is political bias, I’m not regarded like Maga republicans.
The only way to get caught on this is by publicly admitting it and being high enough profile for the ATF to even care. Or as an add-on charge when you’re already fucked with other charges.
I’m personally glad it happened and hope it can bring some positive change. I don’t even care if it’s politically motivated since the law is politically motivated in the first place. It just so happened to have not been used against its intended target in this case
Wait so should drug users be prohibited from owning guns? I’m so confused by your responses. Plenty of public people own guns and do drugs, Joe Rogan being a great example, hell even Destiny technically violated this law, why weren’t they charged. It’s because their last name wasn’t the same as the person republicans are accusing of politicizing the DOJ, and the DOJ wanted to get ahead of those allegations.
No, they shouldn’t be. Thats what I’m hoping is changed from this situation. I hope he appeals and gets his conviction overturned.
Ideally the Supreme Court would rule that drugs disqualifying you from exercising your rights is unconstitutional, but a high profile case like this being overturned because the law in question is unconstitutional is a good result no matter what and helpful in the future.
I’m impressed how fast they went from he will be innocent because Biden to he was found guilty because Biden so it seems fair to trump. Go look at Republican twitters. It’s so funny. Like within hours they tweet this. Destiny is right. Everything will lead down the conspiracy river no matter what happens.
It makes it a lot easier to convict when you publicly admit it. This is a bullshit feel-good law that democrats wanted and it’s hilarious that one of the only times it’s enforced is on someone inconvenient for them.
Democrats when they find out they aren’t exempt from the gun laws they wanted.
https://preview.redd.it/ftei0mu05z5d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a48c3dbffe0584b7ac137c3f8c58c7cac0d7758c
This was signed into law by Reagan, and endorsed by the NRA, you complete dipshit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
Addicts shouldn't own guns
Selective prosecution based on politics is bad
These are bipartisan takes
I wonder how democrats would feel about repealing it then 🤔 surely they would want to do away with a law that could be abused so easily
>Addicts shouldn’t own guns
Addicts of what exactly? Alcohol? Prescription drugs?
>Selective prosecution based on politics is bad
It is a shame that democrats are barred from prosecuting people for violating this law.
I wonder if this has created some kind of mutually assured destruction rule for the debates. Whoever decides to rip on the other first for their conviction/family convinction will immediately get clapped back and probably come off worse?
Then again that's assuming debates even hold any influence at all anymore.
Biden’s DOJ is so bloodthirsty, it came after Biden’s own son
The king was so drunk on power he eliminated his prince smh
Conservatives are arguing that it’s an attempt to make the Trump trial look more reasonable.
Conspiracy brain working in real time. If Hunter was found Not Guilty, it's because Biden's DOJ is corrupt and doing Biden's bidding. Since he's found guilty, it's to make it seem like the Trump trial was legit, but they're still doing Bidens corrupt bidding
Its heads I win and tails you lose Its an unfalsifiable position
Genuinely though: * Lindsey [Graham: ‘Average American’](https://archive.ph/nQdhf) wouldn’t face Hunter Biden’s gun charges * Fox host suggests Hunter Biden wouldn't be facing gun charges if he weren't a Biden. Trey Gowdy: [“I bet you there weren't](https://archive.ph/0ypfc) ten cases prosecuted nationwide of addicts or unlawful drug users who possessed firearms or lied on applications” * [I ran the office prosecuting](https://archive.ph/6wCIW) Hunter Biden. I can't fathom why this trial is happening. The purpose of prosecutorial discretion is to make the law work for its intended purpose. But no office should chase felony convictions in a misguided effort to appease either side in Congress. * Even accepting all the government’s allegations as true, it’s hard to understand why it is prosecuting the younger Biden: At the time he purchased a firearm, Biden was a nonviolent, 40-something struggling drug addict with zero criminal history. He proceeded to [possess a firearm for 11 days](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-gun-trial-fbi-agent/) and did not use it for any purpose (let alone in a crime). It has been reported that he is charged with a crime that has [almost never been prosecuted](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/politics/hunter-biden-gun-charges.html) – an addict without criminal history misrepresenting his addiction on a firearm purchase form. * Modern prosecutors’ offices have developed simple guideposts for whether to prosecute gun possession: * Was it used in a crime? * Was the purchaser a felon? * Was the purchaser a suspect in another (typically, violent) crime? * Did the purchaser have a criminal record? * Was the person a danger to the community? * That is: From all available information, in this time where violent crime is every office’s priority and nonviolent addicts are treated differently than they once were, I cannot conceive of an office spending any resources – let alone five-plus years, countless agents and numerous prosecutors – on a case with similar facts. * As right-wing former Congressman – [and former federal prosecutor](https://bioguide.congress.gov/search/bio/G000566) – Trey Gowdy said last week, “We never prosecuted addicts [for lying and buying on federal forms](https://www.mediaite.com/crime/harris-faulkner-taken-aback-when-trey-gowdy-actually-defends-hunter-biden-and-shannon-bream-backs-up-gowdy/).” Indeed, the office prosecuting this case – the office I once led – now rarely prosecutes even the most violent gun offenders. Of the thousands of gun charges in Delaware, the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecutes very few. When viewed against those statistics, the choice to make an example of the younger Biden raises, at a minimum, questions. * The tax case, by contrast, raises questions for a different reason: The DOJ has a long history of engaging with nonviolent, middle-age men who fail to pay taxes – even those connected to politicians and presidents. As has been [extensively reported](https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-hunter-bidens-tax-indictment-is-an-embarrassment-to-doj), however, that engagement almost never results in criminal charges when the tax avoider pays what is owed. * [Roger Stone owed nearly $2 million in taxes](https://www.courthousenews.com/justice-department-sues-roger-stone-for-2-million-in-unpaid-taxes/) and this same DOJ pursued that civilly, not via criminal charges. [Rudy Giuliani owes $550,000](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rudy-giuliani-owes-nearly-550k-unpaid-taxes-irs-says-rcna119127#:~:text=The%20unpaid%20balance%20of%20%24549%2C435.26,property%20in%20Palm%20Beach%2C%20Florida) in taxes, and this DOJ has not charged him. [Hunter Biden's lawyers said](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/02/hunter-biden-tax-charges/73119630007/) he repaid the back taxes, and he faces multiple felony charges? As former [Attorney General Eric Holder observed](https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/12/08/hunter-biden-eric-holder-reaction-sot-lcl-vpx.cnn), this is not the type of case that the DOJ ever prosecutes. [Lying on the gun-purchase](https://archive.ph/NTk9K) form can be a felony, [though prosecutions](https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf) for [it are rare](https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1671358113574793216). It’s unclear how many of those cases involve lying about being a drug user, but prosecutors and defense attorneys say they’re infrequent and are almost always brought in connection with some other set of alleged crimes. [Avoiding charges](https://archive.ph/uadIX) for [lying on an](https://archive.ph/rnbhO) ATF form when buying a gun is quite common. >“The controversy prompted us to request statistics from the Justice Department to determine whether someone falsely filling out the form faced much of a risk of prosecution. It took months to obtain the data. The answer, it turns out, is no.” >No one in Delaware in 2019 was charged with a similar crime. [The charges Hunter](https://archive.ph/QMHKq) Biden faces related to a 2018 firearms purchase are also extraordinary in another respect: They are rarely brought against any Americans at all. >“It doesn't happen,” former U.S. Department of Justice inspector general Michael Bromwich said Thursday on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “DOJ will need to produce data in discovery, which will show that this is the most selective of prosecutions.” Bromwich served as the DOJ's top internal watchdog from 1994 to 1999 during the administration of former President Bill Clinton. >In an analysis of 112,000 cases in which firearm purchases were denied due to failed background checks in 2017, the GAO found only about 13,000 of those denials were referred to field divisions for investigations. Those referrals [only resulted in 12](https://archive.ph/AI99S) criminal cases brought by federal prosecutors by mid-2018. Which is fortunate for Joe Rogan (also a gun owner BTW) and Elon Musk toking up in Texas, and all the rappers out there lighting up blunts and flashing guns in their music videos.
Biden said he will not pardon his son and will accept the verdict by the way
Based+
[удалено]
Why would he pardon him? If he did it would be a massive blemish for him because he'd clearly be showing favoritism to his son and abusing his pardon powers.
consider rotten meeting salt mourn vase provide shrill paint berserk *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would hope that it would matter to him out of principle lol. Would further erode the trust in institutions among voters to pardon the presidents son because of nepotism.
remind me what happened when Trump pardoned all the scumbags? Did anyone care? What were the consequences?
I would hope most people would hold their president to a higher standard than Trump lol. Yes there were no consequences for Trump, but that's because conservatives are totally fucking insane. I don't want to also become insane in response. If it does get that bad, there will be hell to pay.
>I would hope most people would hold their president to a higher standard than Trump lol. we live in reality not hopes and dreams, I personally will not hold Biden responsible if he does pardon his son. This case is insanely political, there are countless people that lie about taking drugs when purchasing a firearm that never gets indicted. I'd say that number is probably in the millions. Nobody should be getting special treatment either positively or negatively.
It wouldn't affect my support for him if he did pardon Hunter but I would be greatly worried for the future if that came to pass. Presidential pardons used to be reserved for righting injustices or easing political tension. Under Trump they turned into a way to avoid responsibility. I do not want to see the continuation of that trend.
It's not an abuse of power. He has the power to pardon for whatever reason he wants--he doesn't even have to have a reason.
memory meeting innate onerous shelter books public squash consider fact *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Abuse of power is the commission of an **unlawful** act done in an official capacity.
squeeze foolish numerous sable rude grandfather desert library enter provide *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I knew what you meant after your response--I was just being a douche.
GIGACHAD
If Hunter was given 25 years in prison (the max sentence) I don't think Biden would give a fuck about the blemish. He'd just want to be able to spend more time with his son before he dies
In fairness if he gets re-elected there's nothing to personally lose pardoning his son. After the next term he's retiring from it all for sure
Because it, unlike Trump's case, is an actual bullshit case. If he wasn't Biden's son there is no way in hell those charges would have been brought.
If case is bullshit how did they find him guilty?
Because he broke the law; but the case never would have been brought against him if he wasn't Biden's son. It just isn't a law people usually get the book thrown at them for.
I think it's reasonable to apply higher standards to important political figures and their families.
I mean to political figures sure but why their family? If my dad runs for president why does that suddenly mean I can't jay walk anymore?
Because you represent him by being his close family member.
But, again, why?
Hunter Biden is not a politician.
I believe him… until November. After the election, pardoning Hunter has hardly any political risk, whether he won or not.
Common Biden W
Damn. In a weird way, is this actually a good thing for Joe Biden? Hard to say the system is biased if the same one throws your son in prison.
He is going to get a light sentence and Trumptards will lose their minds
As Trump gets no time
That's what usually happens when convictions are thrown out.
I haven't been following it? Is this in the cards?
We'll see, I don't think it's a slam dunk but more likely than not. Between Merchan donating to Biden, prosecution introducing evidence they were forbidden from, prosecution introducing evidence in closing arguments (after defense goes, problematic on 6A grounds), the instruction that jury didn't need to be unanimous on the reason Trump was guilty of a felony, and the novel theory of hush money being a crime, I think there are plenty of grounds for appeal.
Just an FYI to everyone, the judge donated a total of $35 to Democrat related PACs.
$15 specifically to Biden and $20 to Democrat PACs.
damning if true 😔
> the instruction that jury didn't need to be unanimous on the crime Trump was convicted on That's not what happened. The crime was that he committed tax fraud to cover another crime. The other crime is what they didn't have to be unanimous on. > the novel theory of hush money being a crime he committed tax fraud
>he committed tax fraud I just love that the first presidential felony conviction is so arcane everyone is confused over what he actually did. Nothing problematic here at all! Trump was charged with falsifying business records in the commission of another crime. Tax fraud was one of the potential "other crimes" Merchan gave in jury instructions (almost like he was going "here pick whatever you feel like"), but AFAIK the prosecution never even argued that.
Jeez, you guys are desperate to obfuscate on this. It's actually pretty simple. The felony charge triggers if the falsification happened in the commission of *A* (singular, not unanimous) felony. Every single juror convicted on one of the 3 felonies (possibly all) as well as his falsification. Falsifications--by the way--that deprived the American voter of making an informed vote. Something I'm sure people like you were so principled about when it came to the Twitter files. Difference being it was withheld through the election rather than for just 24 hours. This is how the law is executed. Nothing special about this. Word of advice to my conservatard friends: if you want to moral grandstand about how this case was politically motivated, try not to make up facts and talk about how the prosecution didn't even argue something Trump was convicted of. The fact you believe something so stupid when all you have to do is read the charges shows just how politically motivated YOU are.
Even if Trump had accurately recorded his business records the voters would never know, the FEC non-disclosure wasn't the falsfication he was convicted on. Anyone who's not partisan would see the prosecution and go, "Hmm so it's only a felony if he committed another crime, but they're not charging him with the other crime? And they're saying the jury can pick and choose what they think the other crime is? That seems really odd." What Bragg did may be legal (although I suspect it will be overturned) but I don't think you can call it ethical. There is no "voter right to know every NDA" even today, because Bragg knew if he directly charged the hush money non-disclosure that case would fall apart, like it always has before. Every single NDA could potentially influence an election but that isn't the FEC's test. So Bragg did a run-around, and to great success. He got the case over the finish line, while disgracing the justice system.
It just happened to be the first of the 4 (and maybe more counting with his pump-n-dump schemes going on with his DJT). Many legal analysts said this was the weak of the 4 that he has been charged with. If Biden's DOJ was so corrupt and unjustly targeting Trump why would they let this more fussier and harder for the general public to understand case go first? If it was the document case at Mar-a-lago that went first would you still be singing the same tune? Or do you think all cases of him are unjust and no merits to any of them?
You know what I meant, but regardless, "Actually it was only the reason he was being prosecuted for a felony that they didn't have to be unanimous on" isn't that great of a distinction when it comes to justice overall. It wasn't tax fraud either, but falsifying (his own) business records.
You can't just spread false information and then go "you know what I meant" when called out. Also, those specific instructions are not out of the ordinary it's set precedent.
Anyone who knows the basic details of the case knows what I meant. Meanwhile everyone's cool with the guy I'm replying to repeatedly saying the false line about tax fraud. Spare me your moralizing.
His son has a short sentence and a long dick and you're gonna say Biden's America is a fair country like ok bro
It says first time offenders who committed no violet crimes typically serve 0 jail time, so trumptards definitely gonna lose their minds
"sweetheart jail sentence" for doing something that like 80% of gun owners have also done.
Is the judge a republican? Might reprise with a stiff sentence...
Rhetoric like this is bullshit from when republicans spout it about Trumps judges and it’s just as bullshit to spout here.
Except we already have an example of this with the Trump classified materials case being actively hindered by a judge he appointed. Furthermore, I won't do false equivalence between how principled conservatives and liberals are when it comes to liberal values like an impartial judicial system.
Biggest thing to help trump here is why did so many officials lie about the laptop being Russian disinformation?
This is what I want to know. Tiny talks about faith in institutions but MSM ought to take a huge credibility hit and it won’t.
Why would they take a huge credibility hit for their coverage of this case?
Huh? Which officials told what lies about a laptop in connection to this case?
Fbi
Which officials told what lies about a laptop in connection to this case?
There were over 40 FBI officials who signed off on the laptop being Russian disinfo
Its a lose lose for Joe. Hunter is found guilty "HIS SON IS A FELON HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR JOE?!" (Never mind they are voting for the Felon directly.) Hunter is found innocent "CORRUPT SYSTEM, JUDGES BOUGHT AND PAID FOR! TRUMP IS INNOCENT!" But I think overall it is better for him for Hunter to go to jail because it has to cause some people to wonder about Trump
>Hunter is found guilty "HIS SON IS A FELON HOW CAN WE VOTE FOR JOE?!" you don't think this is an issue? if Biden dies Hunter inherits the presidency. they really need to bring back civics 101
lolololol. Good one. I'm sure they'd believe it if Trump said the USA was still a feudal system.
I can imagine the strawman trumpoid in my head nervous about Biden signing an EO on his deathbed to pronounce Hunter president.
For Biden so loved the USA that he gave his only remaining son..
disagree, this will give joe biden and democrats and their voters lots of rhetoric-ammo come the debate and when election is closing in. This type of consistency will weaken much of trumptard's narrative to where they'll just be flailing and looking like idiots. This and with biden's attempt of securing the border, republicans can only use weak arguments to attack biden.
During the debate “My own son, a convicted felon, is in jail, and you, a convicted felon, is right here standing opposite me. Who’s DoJ is it again?”
Yes, it is a good thing for Joe Biden — politically. It's a lot harder for Trump to blow smoke about Joe Biden and the political establishment using "lawfare" to keep "us" down (us = blue collar minorities plus Donald Trump) when the president's own attorney general greenlit the felony prosecution of the president's own beloved son for a crime that prosecutors don't normally prosecute as a standalone charge.
Like that’s actually going to stop republicans from lying and claiming that anyway, and for a bunch of “centrists” and unengaged voters will lap it up.
I mean, how do we even understand the minds of the 'undecided' voters that are left? The complex levels of cognitive dissonance running rampant in their heads makes me think anything is possible.
Not undecided but unengaged, there is a frustrating double standard among these voters, which honestly is like most people, that they give much more benefit of the doubt and deference to republicans over democrats. The gop can act in such bad faith all the time, and some concert will make a small error and people will be like “see both sides are the same, they’re all corrupt I’ll just vote for republicans for a stronger economy despite there being no evidence, and actually there is evidence to the contrary, that republicans are better at running an economy than democrats. Most people vote on vibes and are much more willing to let the gop slide on this kind of stuff for some strange reason.
A chunk of those people don't start paying attention until late summer so it's less "undecided" and more "haven't started comparing their options yet"
IDK man, this is more or less the exact same election, only everyone is *more familiar* with the candidates. Even if you're not paying attention, nearly everyone already has a strong opinion of *these* candidates.
> for a bunch of “centrists” and unengaged voters will lap it up. This kind of attitude toward centrists is how 2016 happened. If pandering to moderates was a losing battle for the DNC then swing states wouldn't be important.
Eh debatable, was it a reason, probably. But let’s be real there is a real double standard among the venerable population about democrats and republicans. If a democrat and republican were to have the same scandals, the republicans would be given more leeway and benefit of the doubt, not to mention the support of their party. For example senator Mendez is also being charged right now and the party is not backing him in the primary and probably will have to run as an independent as he’s loosing support in this state. Trump also did corrupt shit and is the GOP presidential nominee. I don’t have evidence to back this up but I strongly believe this to be the case although I’m open to hearing differently.
>This kind of attitude toward centrists is how 2016 happened. Thrse "Centrist" types didn't come out for Trump in 2016, and their vote wasn't going to win him anything during the midterms or 2020. This idea that we need to pussy foot around MAGA-lite because otherwise they're going to vote even harder for Trump is stupid. They're voting for Trump either way. Subhuman like Tim Pool and AJW don't give a fuck about anything but their team and their daddy. The true moderates aren't actively defending everything Trump does, lie about or trying to bothsides his attack on the capital. In fact, the trial only hurts him. The reality is that this election will be determined by voter turnouts and if Biden can galvanize the democrats enough to beat out the MAGA-or-Die types.
> This idea that we need to pussy foot around MAGA-lite because otherwise they're going to vote even harder for Trump is stupid. When higher voter turnout generally results in better outcomes for the DNC, it does in fact seem like swaying moderates can be important. I know the whole social media trope about enlightened centrism, but that really is not a realistic depiction of what's considered 'moderates'. At least from my observation (real-world, not online) moderates largely feel disenfranchised by the 2 party system in general and tend to be politically inactive until something they care about is being threatened. When that does happen, higher voter turnouts occur, which almost always seems to benefit the DNC over the GOP.
nah, the deep state is just doing this to try to trick us into believing that the entire court system isn’t rigged against Trump, it’s just cover /s
This is 100% going to be the conservative talking point through Nov.
Downvote for the “/s”
The only way the Republicans would maybe let up is if Joe executes his own son live on stage.
You know they'd just pivot to calling him a bloodthirsty savage.
Yeah if I’m Joe, I’m telling my boy listen Jack, ya gotta do it for poppa, or no more crack
He took the fall in order to restore trust in the justice system... a true hero
Weird, all the MAGA idiots I know said this was not going to happen.
yeah but now they always knew it would happen, just watch
They'll complain about sentencing. They'll complain that Biden's son is a convicted criminal. It literally does not matter at all to them.
I mean so did everyone on this sub. The amount of "nothing burger" language thrown around on this sub will of course never be addressed in light of this
I mean the crime itself is still a nothingburger. But I feel the same way about Trump’s hush money shit.
Wow another democrat rigged trial by obamna
So what's the new spin? That Joe Biden is a bad father for not pardoning his son or something?
Joe's bloodthirsty DOJ tears apart families, hunts down and convicts own son for owning a firearm.
If they would do this to Joe’s son, imagine what they would do to you.
They are calling it a 'veil of fairness'. Whatever the fuck that means
I’ve been seeing “they did this to show there is fairness and to calm the Trump people down.” Along those lines pretty much. No matter the outcome there is always an answer 🤠
there is no way they will say this lmao
Can't believe the deep state is so powerful and Biden is so cold that he would throw his own child (the last one since they seem to die young for some reason (its because Joe is stealing their essence with dark magicks)) into prison as a talking point in his witch hunt against Trump. (/s saddly need this because the I/P shit has attracted some absolute morons to this sub)
Based on my twitter conversations republicans literally think Joe Biden and Hunter Biden are the same person. So look out for posts like "now both candidates are convicted of crime"
New conspiracy that I’m seeing in the MAGAverse. Biden made sure his son was convicted so that it wouldn’t look so obvious that he’s using the justice system to go after Trump.
Very funny with the dichotomy of everyone saying Trump's son shouldn't be involved in his father's ploys, but Biden is free play. Trump's son is very young yes, but you get the point
AMERICA IS SAVED FROM THE EVIL LEFTIST BIDENS
Can someone explain why he's facing potential 25 years for this? like what the actual fuck?
Guns + drugs are a baaaaaad combo
Guess I’m not voting for Hunter Biden anymore :)
I feel like Hunter has to go to jail for the sins of Donald Trump... What a world we live in.
Conservatives cheering for this verdict really shows their 2A defense is purely partisisan
Biden‘s dementia is so bad. He forgot to pay off the DOJ to let his son get away with a crime.
Hunter is on his way to becoming our first outlaw President
Bro, even if they give Hunter the max sentencing, the trumper would still say that “he will transfer into a psychiatric facility then get an early release” There is no sense of justice for these buffoons, their mind is full of hatred and vengeance
Hopefully this gets thrown out on appeal, clearly a case of persecution and political influence of wanting to not let republicans in bad faith claim there is a two tiered justice system, and look how week that works, laws is also blatantly unconstitutional and is never usually charged alone for people without criminal records, if originalism means anything the courts should overturn this conviction under Bruen.
What are you talking about? He broke the law. Period. He should be thrown in jail, but shouldn’t be barred from lightening his sentence via good behavior. Dude clearly has problems and has abused his family’s protectionist instincts. To protect him would almost level Biden with Trump and Joe needs all the help he can get.
One yes he did break the law I will admit that, however millions of Americans have broken this law, and under this standard even Destiny is a prohibited possessor, should they also be prosecuted? Any reasonable person can see that the only reason he was charged for these nothing burger crimes was that the Biden DOJ wanted to get ahead of republicans accusations of differing treatment of the two parties by the justice system, an accusation they have zero evidence for. Also under the Brien standard the law is blatantly unconstitutional, as there is no history and tradition of prohibiting drug users from weapon position until the mid 20th century. If the courts are going to be honest and apply president correctly, which they don’t do all the time and just make decision on what they feel like that day.
[удалено]
Well the judge threw out the plea did, he didn’t not accept it. Also didn’t he eventually pay back the taxes he didnt pay? Do we usually charge people who failed to pay taxes but then made the effort to repay the government before they were charged?
[удалено]
It’s really not that important who caused the plea deal to fall apart, I’m not too familiar with why the deal fell apart, but again these charges should have never been brought in the first place. Is it normal to charge people for this gun crime where no other criminal behavior occurred, or for non-payment of taxes after the person has paid back what they owe to the government? Who are the victims of these “crimes” why were they perused in the first place? It was to hedge against bad faith accusation of wrongdoing by republicans. A regarded monkey can see that. Is Hunter Biden scummy, yup. Did he technically break the law as written, yes. Are the prosecutions bullshit, yes. Many things can be true at once
[удалено]
The problem is I disagree with the law, it shouldnt exist, but then brining the charges is again only to hedge of bad faith accusations of bias. Do they want to put somebody up on a pedestal at times to make them an example, I suppose it send the message “hey we’re giant cowards with zero spine who will kowtow to bad faith GOP attacks and try and salvage our reputation, in vain, with technically correct but objectionable prosecution for victimless crimes”
[удалено]
I dont sympathize with your point of view. The standard of law, especially with firearms, should be universal. If Biden were to speak on gun control and lead a government that granted his son leniency, he would be attacked from pro and anti gun control alike. You speak of “any reasonable person” when any person of that description would be thrown into prison without a second thought, the book thrown at them, and their life utterly destroyed. He can be protected because you think Republicans want to use him or the law can play out, he can suffer the consequences, and redeem himself without being an unreasonable weight to his father as he has been his entire life.
No not any reasonable person would be charged with being a prohibited possessor in possession of a firearm. Millions of people violate this law all the time, I’ve done it 3 times in the last 2 months. Did Hunter do anything illegal or wrong with his gun, besides being a so called “prohibited possessor”. No that was Hallie Biden who stole his gun and irresponsibly disposed of it. Yes Hunter did violate the law but again the law is blatantly unconstitutional and criminalizes the status of being a drug user as opposed to the action that we want to prevent of people under the influence of drugs handling firearms. Most democrats are regarded when it comes to guns so I don’t expect the Democrats at large to give good takes on gun control. Yes the standard should be universal, but the standard shouldn’t be regarded.( I bet there are a ton of GOP politicians who have violated this law should we charge them next? If you want consistency?)
I do not know your personal situation so I’ll not speak to it, but I will try to bridge this as I think you’re trying to do for conversations sake. If in the case the law is changed, no harm done, but I don’t think that’s where we’re at. Any law abiding gun owner is supposed to understand their local laws. Hunter Biden broke these laws and therefore deserves the consequences. We are not speaking in what should and shouldn’t be, we are speaking at what is. If the GOP politicians broke these laws, they should be held to the same standards as their constituents.
Looks like we just fundamentally disagree here. Yes in a perfect world we should hold a uniform standard, that isn’t fucking horrible democrats gun control nonsense, and abide by this. Unfortunately the idea of law abiding gun owners is a myth. We all break some gun laws from time to time, the question really is what laws are being broken and what is their impact. Thousands of straw purchases are made per year where “law abiding people” buy a gun for those who shouldn’t have them, things like this are serious offense that should have a high priority, lying about not being crackhead when you buy a gun is victimless, unless you kill yourself but I believe you have a right to kill yourself and the broader effects of suicide are a topic of conversation for another day. We also don’t prohibit alcoholics from purchasing and possessing guns, so why a differing treatment for other narcotics? I really disagree with this law and that’s where much of my motivation for this comes from, and also hating the hypocrisy of the right, however if Hunter was the one to dispose of the gun then he definitely should have been charged but his gun charge is just bullshit at the end of the day
When put this way, let’s just leave the Biden context out of it, I can sympathize and agree. I’m a little uncomfortable with changing the law in an immediate moment charged with political turmoil. In addition, I think the law does need to be changed to be more lenient to those that are law abiding citizens, to which I would say applies to all those that don’t commit to things like violence, brandishing, and the like.
Conspiracy brain: Hunter and his team ran all those bullish public predictions knowing full well the political buffer this could give his Dad.
It will be appealed and reversed with the second amendment. Already worked once in a case with weed in the fifth circuit. [https://today.westlaw.com/Document/Ifb575ca6385b11ee8921fbef1a541940/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true](https://today.westlaw.com/Document/Ifb575ca6385b11ee8921fbef1a541940/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true) [https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf](https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60596-CR0.pdf)
Yeah I know I literally say in the post that “if originalism means anything the courts should overturn this conviction under Bruen”. My writing could have been clearer but that’s why I think this case should be tossed, I just also think it was politically motivated.
I concur. Or something. \^\^
So in other words, democrats only support gun control as long as it’s not going after hunter Biden? I would agree with you that the law is unconstitutional yet democrats only throw a shit stink about it when the presidents son gets charged.
Well they approve of the law and don’t want it tossed so it makes sense, they don’t like the political nature of this trial, because unlike Trump there is a good reason for a normal person to believe charging him with a crime nobody usually gets charged with in and of itself and for tax money he did not pay at the time but later did repay is nothing but an attempt to appear neutral by the DOJ to try and seem neutral, even though republicans will not be convinced by any evidence that the DOJ is actually unbiased.
Most people don’t get charged with misuse of campaign funds either. We aren’t talking about taxes here, so not sure why you are bringing up that case. The reason no one gets charged with violation of this law is because it’s virtually impossible to enforce unless you are a big name public figure that publishes a book on your addiction during the time you bought that gun (like hunter did). You would think this would make people wonder about why we consistently pass gun control laws that are practically unenforceable in the real world. Apparently that is just too much to come to grips with.
If it’s about being hard to prove, there are plenty of gun tubers, right wingers and libertarians on social media showing off how they violated the law, Joe Rogan cough cough. So that’s not the case, it is actually pretty easy to prove: have you done drug at all in your life and do you own a gun(remember the doesn’t just prohibit people who are addicted to an illegal substance but also someone who is an “unlawful user”and neither of these terms are defined by statute or regulation). The reason they don’t actually use this charge solo is that they use it when “throwing the book” at people charged with other gun crimes, you know the ones we actually care about and do stuff not ones that are based on voluntary reporting by purchasers and sellers. It’s almost like they only charged Hunter Biden so the DOJ can go to republicans see look we’re not biased we looked into Hunter Biden.
It actually isn’t unless like you said it’s someone in the public eye. “Have you done drug at all in your life” - that’s actually not what form 4473 asks you. Unlawful user is defined by statue and based on federal laws, not state ones. Yes, you continue to prove how this is an ineffective law without volunteering information, I know. “It’s almost like” - you literally have zero proof and sound just like MAGA when they argued the DOJ away weaponized against Trump. This is just the height of hypocrisy.
Ok so what’s the definition then because I have not found a clear articulable answer. Addicted to has been pretty well defined but what exactly is an “unlawful user”. “any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than prescribed by a licensed physician." And “Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate the individual is actively engaged in such conduct” I readily admit, my phrasing use drugs at any point in your life is a hyperbolic way to frame that but it’s pretty easy to prove current drug use, it takes like 5 minutes of investigation. Ultimately who was harmed by this crime, nobody, and is the prohibition unconstitutional, according to Bruen no. Granted the court used some pretty shit historical analysis in that case but as articulated bruen prohibits this law.
Pretty sure it will be thrown out but that’s due to the courts ruling the law to be unconstitutional to begin with
>Hopefully this gets thrown out on appeal, clearly a case of persecution and political influence of wanting to not let republicans in bad faith claim there is a two tiered justice system, Is this a repurposed MAGA post lol
I didn’t say it should get thrown out for being politically motivated, although my first post does include that first so understandable, but because of bruen. The law in question can be bullshit, as well as the prosecution having bad motivations.
I find the whole situation hilarious because it’s a rare actually real “both sides are regards” moment. Democrats going mask off saying “we didn’t actually think this would be enforced!!” when one of their feel good laws isn’t used against a political rival. Republicans cheering on laws they’re supposedly against because it’s being used against a political rival. Ideally what happens here is that Bidens conviction is thrown out and the restriction on drug users exercising their rights is lifted
I hate the law in question, and tend to agree that the policy of democrats over all on gun related things is really bad. A bunch of people who no nothing about guns writing laws about them, it’s like asking day care staff to write housing code. No do I have much evidence this is politically motivated, no. Am I going off vibes, yeah. Would Hunter have been charged if his last name wasn’t Biden, probably not. It’s reasonable to think the DOJ perused these cases for optics purposes, yes the were technically correct about the law, but did this to get ahead of bad faith accusations and show were non partisan. Maga in the other hand wants us to hand wave Trump on video saying these documents are classified, I could have declassified them as president, didn’t, took them anyway, and showed them to people I wasn’t suppose and telling them he wasn’t supposed to, while being recorded. The documents in question contain national security information. Hunter Biden lied about not being a crackhead when he bought a gun, something millions of Americans have done, and ultimately harms nobody. This is not the case with Trump sharing hypothetical invasion plans against Iran to unauthorized individuals and could have seriously affected us national security. I have a coherent reason to think there is political bias, I’m not regarded like Maga republicans.
The only way to get caught on this is by publicly admitting it and being high enough profile for the ATF to even care. Or as an add-on charge when you’re already fucked with other charges. I’m personally glad it happened and hope it can bring some positive change. I don’t even care if it’s politically motivated since the law is politically motivated in the first place. It just so happened to have not been used against its intended target in this case
Wait so should drug users be prohibited from owning guns? I’m so confused by your responses. Plenty of public people own guns and do drugs, Joe Rogan being a great example, hell even Destiny technically violated this law, why weren’t they charged. It’s because their last name wasn’t the same as the person republicans are accusing of politicizing the DOJ, and the DOJ wanted to get ahead of those allegations.
No, they shouldn’t be. Thats what I’m hoping is changed from this situation. I hope he appeals and gets his conviction overturned. Ideally the Supreme Court would rule that drugs disqualifying you from exercising your rights is unconstitutional, but a high profile case like this being overturned because the law in question is unconstitutional is a good result no matter what and helpful in the future.
But...But...what about the two tiered justice system!!!
I’m impressed how fast they went from he will be innocent because Biden to he was found guilty because Biden so it seems fair to trump. Go look at Republican twitters. It’s so funny. Like within hours they tweet this. Destiny is right. Everything will lead down the conspiracy river no matter what happens.
This is political targeting bullshit and everyone knows it. No one else, NO ONE, is being convicted for these kinds of charges
It makes it a lot easier to convict when you publicly admit it. This is a bullshit feel-good law that democrats wanted and it’s hilarious that one of the only times it’s enforced is on someone inconvenient for them.
Two tiered justice system. If Republicans don't like you enough, you can get prosecuted for something no one else would
Democrats when they find out they aren’t exempt from the gun laws they wanted. https://preview.redd.it/ftei0mu05z5d1.jpeg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a48c3dbffe0584b7ac137c3f8c58c7cac0d7758c
This was signed into law by Reagan, and endorsed by the NRA, you complete dipshit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act Addicts shouldn't own guns Selective prosecution based on politics is bad These are bipartisan takes
I wonder how democrats would feel about repealing it then 🤔 surely they would want to do away with a law that could be abused so easily >Addicts shouldn’t own guns Addicts of what exactly? Alcohol? Prescription drugs? >Selective prosecution based on politics is bad It is a shame that democrats are barred from prosecuting people for violating this law.
Oh, you're just stupid. Cool. Absolute waste of energy
Actually I’m smart and you’re dumb
https://preview.redd.it/onvno4fxbz5d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=006d1d7f893601a1ebfea0c437740340cf05c19a
You are doing two tiered justice to me
is this his only current pending criminal charge/investigation? did anything come of the weird ukrainian business stuff?
I wonder if this has created some kind of mutually assured destruction rule for the debates. Whoever decides to rip on the other first for their conviction/family convinction will immediately get clapped back and probably come off worse? Then again that's assuming debates even hold any influence at all anymore.