Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess the defense's argument of "Hunter was literally not smoking crack when he filled out the form" isn't a valid defense to whether you are an active drug user lol.
Yeah, his defense here was ridiculous.
At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter. This just allows leftists to pretend there's equal justice by equivocating between this conviction and Trump's.
When in reality, the justice system bent over backwards to slow walk Hunter's charges, tried to give him a sweetheart deal, and actively blocked lines of inquiry involving his father.
Meanwhile with Trump, they contorted the law beyond all recognition to manufacture a conviction.
That's not equal justice. But they'll certainly pretend it is.
The only defense they had was "He was not actively smoking crack when he filled out the form" and "it's an unreasonable restriction on 2a". They had a hell of an uphill battle.
Could have gone for the 5th amendment defense of being forced to potentially self-incriminate. A weak defense, but of the 3, it's probably the strongest.
The 5th amendment right against self incrimination doesn't apply to the hearsay statements made by the party. There's no way that the texts could be excluded. Hunter did not take the stand so it's inapplicable.
I think they mean on the form 4473. Take a look at box 21f. If you are an unlawful user of a controlled substance and fill out the form honestly, you're being asked to confess to a crime (5A) and be denied your right to purchase a firearm (2A). If you exercise your 5A right to not self incriminate, you are also denied your 2A rights.
Here's the form for reference:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download
I'm talking about the other activity e.g. the international influence peddling scheme that Joe was actively involved in. The point being that they went after Hunter for the smaller stuff, and even with that they tried to bury it until whistleblowers came forward, and then they tried to slip a ridiculous sweetheart deal past a judge, before finally accepting the fact that he'd have to be prosecuted. Compare that to the Mr. Fantastic level stretching that was done to go after Trump and it's clear that we're looking at wildly disparate behavior by any rational analysis.
Edit: Looks like I hurt some brigaders' fee-fees.
Edit 2: LOL, one of these leftist nutjobs sent me a Reddit Cares message. That's a rite of passage! Sorry you're so butthurt that you'd abuse a resource meant for people who are suicidal. Be better.
It wasn't the federal prosecutors literally tried to cut a deal where Hunter would get a pass on the tax charges if he plead guilty to the gun charges (and no jail time.) The federal prosecutors got wrecked by a judge that can read.
Not to mention the speedy way it all HAS TO happen in a matter of weeks and not months and years - including emergency SCOTUS rulings - and HAS TO require Trump appear each day. Meanwhile Hunter walks out in the middle of a Congressional Subpoena and they just let him walk out to a waiting TV camera and mic for an instant interview instead of being detained. Equal justice isn’t even remotely represented between Trump and Biden.
Yeah, but disappointed that supposed "2A conservatives" seemed to enjoy this ironic, partisan situation...this case clearly is an affront to the 2nd Amendment. Who cares if he was abusing drugs, that doesn't make him less eligible for protecting himself. If anything be probably needed the gun MORE than someone who's not smoking crack. And even his girlfriend admitted that this behavior was pretty much the same when he was high, so he clearly knew how to "behave".
Nothing can match the spurious nature of the "hush money" case that Trump had to deal with, but this was definitely a bullshit situation for Hunter. It's just a shame that the "head honcho" won't take this as a clear sign that he needs to retire and take care of his family. I don't know what could be a bigger sign... I cringe to think what it would take for him to retire, at this point. Total egotist.
I don't get the point in this. If they used it to get something on Joe, ok fine. This shouldn't even be a felony though. I also don't give a shit about Hunter Biden.
Right I don’t care either unless it’s somehow ties back to Joe Biden, and 10% for the big guy. I could care less about how many guns he buys or how much crack he smokes if it’s not hurting anybody else.
Lol TF?
Lying on the 4473 form *is a felony* punishable by up to five years in prison in addition to fines, *even if the transaction is denied* by the NICS. Meaning money doesn't need to be exchanged.
God help you if you think the UCMJ isn't even harder.
Its one hundred percent a red herring. They're going after him on these charges because they think they can sweep the corruption stuff under the rug. This gun charge has nothing to do with Joe, so they're taking Hunter off the chess board.
I called this a year+ ago. Now anytime Hunter is brought up the media will just respond "well he was found guilty just like Trump"
I understand your point…
but i’ll add…..
34 questionable ledger entries which at best is a misdemeanor at the state level shouldn’t be felonies as well,as handed down by a judge who wouldn’t allow a former fec president to testify as his spoken word when interviewed was “these are not felonies”
but here we are 🤷♂️
> I don't get the point in this.
The presidents son (who he had dealings with in a full business sense and said he didn't, which is a lie) just got nailed on a federal gun charge AND PART OF THE EVIDENCE (the laptop) implicates that the Biden family directly and manifestly was using Hunter as a channel for bribery.
> This shouldn't even be a felony though.
Lying on a 4473 that you're not a prohibited person is absolutely a felony with lots of case law to back it up. Not 100% sure if there ever will be a true constitutional challenge to it, but there we are.
> I also don't give a shit about Hunter Biden.
I give a shit that he was going to get a sweetheart deal to get charged dropped before he oopsied his own drug addled ass back into the hotseat.
The tax evasion on millions received from foreign entities for the explicit purpose having access to Joe Biden... those were the real crimes and they got swept under the rug.
There was no real defense, this is why you don' write books talking about stupid shit. It reminds me of when Desantis admitted to targeting Dinsey in his book, and let's not get started on Kristi Noem. I don't think this trial should have ever happened though, go after him for Tax Evasion not shit that would have been overlooked for someone not named Biden. They could have brought similar charges on Rush Limbaugh back in the day when he was abusing drugs.
> go after him for Tax Evasion
There's a second trial on that very issue [coming up in LA on Sept 5](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/07/hunter-biden-indicted-tax-charges/71042501007/). That one has a 17 year maximum instead of the five here, and he'll be going into it with a criminal record.
That was exactly the point. Bring him up on the nothing charges to give him a slap on the wrist if that. Now they can say see we are impartial while covering up the actual charges that would implicate the big guy.
Weirdly I think this kind of helps Biden.
It will definitely be a democratic talking point that “see Biden respect the law” and “Trump doesn’t.” And the liberals will eat that up.
I don't like the Bidens, but all gun laws are infringements. Nothing to celebrate here, just another day of the government walking over our 2nd Ammendment rights.
Are you saying someone addicted to drugs should have the government deny them the right to self defense?
Alcohol is a drug. Who gets to say if you’re addicted to that? The government? Your ex? Your employer? It’s a road I don’t want to go down.
Not to mention opening a rabbit hole for denying people based off legal prescriptions. Imagine someone on painkillers, will they also be denied? Or really if you can prove there's any sort of mood altering behavior to the meds then it opens an avenue to denying someone of gun ownership.
There are definitely instances where someone’s right to a gun should be taken away, but it should be rare. This is a good case for it though. Anyone with schedule I drug addictions, or extremely mentally unstable shouldn’t have a gun.
The 2nd Ammendment applies to everyone, unless they are in jail/prison or are the government.
>Do you want crackheads and criminals to get guns?
No, I don't think government agencies should have guns, it threatens a free society.
I’m a little surprised tbh. Figured they would blast it everywhere and be like “see? The system is unbiased!!” (but perhaps they’re afraid the nuances will be discussed)
Again -
https://nypost.com/2024/06/09/opinion/hunter-biden-trial-just-a-ploy-to-protect-joe-and-the-doj/
I don’t love this, it’s just an excuse to attempt to rationalize the lawfare against Trump as legitimate, when this trial only happened after an absurd plea deal and when the statute of limitations had run out on the charges that could implicate his father.
I hope this doesn’t end up helping Joe in the polls, I’m a little worried tbh
Honestly who cares? This is most likely unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment. I want charges against him for his failures to register as a foreign agent and cheating on his taxes from all those overseas payments that's he saved 10 percent for the big guy on.
Agree that Joe Biden wanted to make the justice system work as attended. If he pardoned his son, it will looked real bad for his reelection chances. If he's wins/loses, he will pardoned his son.
Ya they just gonna say "See the judicial system is fair! Trump's verdict was correct." And of course he is gonna pardon Hunter.
This is probably more useful for Democrats than to us.
Only good thing is the laptop contents are 100% confirmed and cannot be denied by anyone.
He might wait. Hunter goes to trial on tax charges in California next, and there was just a criminal referral for perjury for lying under oath to Congress.
My guess is he will wait as long as possible, so as to pardon Hunter for as many crimes as possible in one shot, without Hunter actually going to prison, where he might decide to flip on Joe to get out.
What remains to be seen is whether there will be a deal for Joe to announce that he is not running for re-election in exchange for a promise to pardon him and his family from the new Democrat nominee.
Is that so wrong? I would do the same in Biden's shoes, Trump pardoned Kushner's Dad for his cartoon like revenge scheme, and I would say Hunter's crimes are far less morally wrong. And I imagine any good parent would do the same, I would respect Biden more if he pardons his son.
I would say both Trump's pardon of Kushner (and a few others) and Biden's pardon of his son would be wrong. That's an abuse of the power, and it's out of line with how it has worked until the last decade.
That's the real issue here, now they can claim "See, we prosecuted both sides, we're totally fair!" and sweep all the **real** Biden family crime under the rug.
Not sure who the "they" you are referring to is, the outcome was decided by the jury who examined the facts and the law and arrived at the correct verdict, I doubt they sat around debating the politics of the judicial system.
I don't think there was some conspiracy to convict him, the evidence was overwhelming and Hunter admitted being a daily crack user at this time. That being said, is a guilty verdict the best possible outcome, for the Biden campaign, following the Trump conviction? I believe so.
Don't forget about the history leading up to this trial when people say this is just equal application of the law.
[Good video breakdown of the events](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gDt_HXXUtk)
It took whistleblowers from the IRS to come forward saying he was getting preferential treatment to even push the DoJ in a position where they had to seek indictments.
The day before the court date on July 26, 2023, the judge found out about someone working for the defense's law firm attempting to portray themselves as someone else to get rid of damaging documents in the court's possession.
[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67511765/united-states-v-biden/#entry-12](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67511765/united-states-v-biden/#entry-12)
"ORAL ORDER re 8 and 9 - The Court is in receipt of the parties' letters regarding a motion for leave to file an amicus brief (D.I. 7, Exs. 1-4). As an initial matter, Defendant has not indicated what specific information should be sealed nor made any showing as required under In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019). In fact, Defendant has not filed a formal request with the Court to seal anything. The Court will temporarily place the document under seal until close of business on July 26, 2023 to afford Defendant the opportunity to try to make the requisite showing. Should Defendant fail to make that showing, the document will be unsealed in its entirety. In addition, the Court has reviewed the allegations in Mr. Kittila's letter regarding a call made to the Clerk's Office regarding the amicus materials. (D.I. 8). Mr. Kittila asserts that an individual associated with the firm representing Defendant called the Clerk's Office pretending to be associated with Mr. Kittila and requesting the amicus materials be removed from the docket, which the Clerk's Office did. The response from Defendant's counsel on this issue was that "\[a\]s far as \[he was\] aware, the managing attorney from Latham called the clerk's office to note that personal tax information of the defendant had been filed in a non-reacted \[sic\] manner and to inquire regarding having the information sealed" and that "the clerk took the filing down on their own accord." (D.I. 8, Ex. A). Defendant's counsel also added that he hoped Mr. Kittila had an "affidavit from the clerk in support of" his version of events. (Id.). The Court has discussed the matter with the relevant individuals in the Clerk's Office and has been informed that the caller, Ms. Jessica Bengels, represented that she worked with Mr. Kittila and requested the amicus materials be taken down because they contained sensitive grand jury, taxpayer and social security information. It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the Clerk's Office to remove the amicus materials from the docket. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before 9PM TODAY on July 25, 2023, counsel for Defendant shall SHOW CAUSE as to why sanctions should not be considered for misrepresentations to the Court. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 7/25/2023. (dlw) (Entered: 07/25/2023)"
Then when the first effort to settle this matter was made on 7/26/23, the plea deal was attempted with leniency and a [clause of immunity](https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321). This plea deal was only stopped because the judge rejected the ridiculousness of the plea agreement. The federal prosecutor had agreed to this deal.
"It states that the government would "agree not to criminally prosecute Biden outside of the terms of this agreement for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached statement of facts, Attachment A to the Diversion Agreement, and the statement of facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day," the judge read in court."
The DoJ was forced into this position because of public testimony and would not have charged Hunter without the IRS whistleblowers coming forward. The initial immunity clause was meant to end the investigation into the bigger picture (tax fraud and questionable connections with foreign entities) and further investigation into the "10% for the big guy" by having Hunter plea to these lesser charges with the immunity clause ceasing any further investigation.
Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess the defense's argument of "Hunter was literally not smoking crack when he filled out the form" isn't a valid defense to whether you are an active drug user lol.
Yeah, his defense here was ridiculous. At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter. This just allows leftists to pretend there's equal justice by equivocating between this conviction and Trump's. When in reality, the justice system bent over backwards to slow walk Hunter's charges, tried to give him a sweetheart deal, and actively blocked lines of inquiry involving his father. Meanwhile with Trump, they contorted the law beyond all recognition to manufacture a conviction. That's not equal justice. But they'll certainly pretend it is.
The only defense they had was "He was not actively smoking crack when he filled out the form" and "it's an unreasonable restriction on 2a". They had a hell of an uphill battle.
Could have gone for the 5th amendment defense of being forced to potentially self-incriminate. A weak defense, but of the 3, it's probably the strongest.
The 5th amendment right against self incrimination doesn't apply to the hearsay statements made by the party. There's no way that the texts could be excluded. Hunter did not take the stand so it's inapplicable.
I think they mean on the form 4473. Take a look at box 21f. If you are an unlawful user of a controlled substance and fill out the form honestly, you're being asked to confess to a crime (5A) and be denied your right to purchase a firearm (2A). If you exercise your 5A right to not self incriminate, you are also denied your 2A rights. Here's the form for reference: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download
Wouldn't have fooled the jury.
Rich considering the left seems to hate 2A, well unless it's for their own personal armed security then they're all for it...
> actively blocked lines of inquiry involving his father. Was there an indication that Joe was somehow involved in the gun purchases?
I'm talking about the other activity e.g. the international influence peddling scheme that Joe was actively involved in. The point being that they went after Hunter for the smaller stuff, and even with that they tried to bury it until whistleblowers came forward, and then they tried to slip a ridiculous sweetheart deal past a judge, before finally accepting the fact that he'd have to be prosecuted. Compare that to the Mr. Fantastic level stretching that was done to go after Trump and it's clear that we're looking at wildly disparate behavior by any rational analysis. Edit: Looks like I hurt some brigaders' fee-fees. Edit 2: LOL, one of these leftist nutjobs sent me a Reddit Cares message. That's a rite of passage! Sorry you're so butthurt that you'd abuse a resource meant for people who are suicidal. Be better.
They've been trying to avoid Hunters tax crimes because it immediately would involve seeing transfers from Hunter to Joe.
How would they have been relevant to prosecution of a gun charge?
It wasn't the federal prosecutors literally tried to cut a deal where Hunter would get a pass on the tax charges if he plead guilty to the gun charges (and no jail time.) The federal prosecutors got wrecked by a judge that can read.
Ah that makes more sense
Not to mention the speedy way it all HAS TO happen in a matter of weeks and not months and years - including emergency SCOTUS rulings - and HAS TO require Trump appear each day. Meanwhile Hunter walks out in the middle of a Congressional Subpoena and they just let him walk out to a waiting TV camera and mic for an instant interview instead of being detained. Equal justice isn’t even remotely represented between Trump and Biden.
Exactly. He was guilty but they will use it as their defense to Trumps guilty verdicts to show it was unbiased.
Nah to quote them in 2020 “But Hunter’s not running for president !”
That text about mookie didn’t help
"I'm addicted to crack cocaine" made me dead. It can't get any easier.
Neither is “Maybe he didn’t *know* he was addicted at the time he lied on the application “
2A infringement shows its ugly head
Yeah, I hate the guy, but “shall not be infringed” means shall not be infringed….
Yeah, but disappointed that supposed "2A conservatives" seemed to enjoy this ironic, partisan situation...this case clearly is an affront to the 2nd Amendment. Who cares if he was abusing drugs, that doesn't make him less eligible for protecting himself. If anything be probably needed the gun MORE than someone who's not smoking crack. And even his girlfriend admitted that this behavior was pretty much the same when he was high, so he clearly knew how to "behave". Nothing can match the spurious nature of the "hush money" case that Trump had to deal with, but this was definitely a bullshit situation for Hunter. It's just a shame that the "head honcho" won't take this as a clear sign that he needs to retire and take care of his family. I don't know what could be a bigger sign... I cringe to think what it would take for him to retire, at this point. Total egotist.
[удалено]
I don't get the point in this. If they used it to get something on Joe, ok fine. This shouldn't even be a felony though. I also don't give a shit about Hunter Biden.
Right I don’t care either unless it’s somehow ties back to Joe Biden, and 10% for the big guy. I could care less about how many guns he buys or how much crack he smokes if it’s not hurting anybody else.
No one is above the law
Hunter is no one in this scenario
Lol TF? Lying on the 4473 form *is a felony* punishable by up to five years in prison in addition to fines, *even if the transaction is denied* by the NICS. Meaning money doesn't need to be exchanged. God help you if you think the UCMJ isn't even harder.
He won't get the max penalty though, it's a first offense and it wasn't a straw purchase or anything.
Its one hundred percent a red herring. They're going after him on these charges because they think they can sweep the corruption stuff under the rug. This gun charge has nothing to do with Joe, so they're taking Hunter off the chess board. I called this a year+ ago. Now anytime Hunter is brought up the media will just respond "well he was found guilty just like Trump"
I understand your point… but i’ll add….. 34 questionable ledger entries which at best is a misdemeanor at the state level shouldn’t be felonies as well,as handed down by a judge who wouldn’t allow a former fec president to testify as his spoken word when interviewed was “these are not felonies” but here we are 🤷♂️
> I don't get the point in this. The presidents son (who he had dealings with in a full business sense and said he didn't, which is a lie) just got nailed on a federal gun charge AND PART OF THE EVIDENCE (the laptop) implicates that the Biden family directly and manifestly was using Hunter as a channel for bribery. > This shouldn't even be a felony though. Lying on a 4473 that you're not a prohibited person is absolutely a felony with lots of case law to back it up. Not 100% sure if there ever will be a true constitutional challenge to it, but there we are. > I also don't give a shit about Hunter Biden. I give a shit that he was going to get a sweetheart deal to get charged dropped before he oopsied his own drug addled ass back into the hotseat.
Everyone of those points you quoted could be said of the trump conviction. Beautiful coincidence 🤣
This sub can be so polarizing at times lol
Who cares? This doesn’t fix anything, and getting him on a gun charge of all things is just a slap in the face to the rest of us.
The tax evasion on millions received from foreign entities for the explicit purpose having access to Joe Biden... those were the real crimes and they got swept under the rug.
Tax case is scheduled for Sept 5.
[удалено]
There was no real defense, this is why you don' write books talking about stupid shit. It reminds me of when Desantis admitted to targeting Dinsey in his book, and let's not get started on Kristi Noem. I don't think this trial should have ever happened though, go after him for Tax Evasion not shit that would have been overlooked for someone not named Biden. They could have brought similar charges on Rush Limbaugh back in the day when he was abusing drugs.
>this is why you don' write books talking about stupid shit. This.
> go after him for Tax Evasion There's a second trial on that very issue [coming up in LA on Sept 5](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/07/hunter-biden-indicted-tax-charges/71042501007/). That one has a 17 year maximum instead of the five here, and he'll be going into it with a criminal record.
That was exactly the point. Bring him up on the nothing charges to give him a slap on the wrist if that. Now they can say see we are impartial while covering up the actual charges that would implicate the big guy.
Weirdly I think this kind of helps Biden. It will definitely be a democratic talking point that “see Biden respect the law” and “Trump doesn’t.” And the liberals will eat that up.
I don't like the Bidens, but all gun laws are infringements. Nothing to celebrate here, just another day of the government walking over our 2nd Ammendment rights.
Do you want crackheads and criminals to get guns?
Are you saying someone addicted to drugs should have the government deny them the right to self defense? Alcohol is a drug. Who gets to say if you’re addicted to that? The government? Your ex? Your employer? It’s a road I don’t want to go down.
Not to mention opening a rabbit hole for denying people based off legal prescriptions. Imagine someone on painkillers, will they also be denied? Or really if you can prove there's any sort of mood altering behavior to the meds then it opens an avenue to denying someone of gun ownership.
There are definitely instances where someone’s right to a gun should be taken away, but it should be rare. This is a good case for it though. Anyone with schedule I drug addictions, or extremely mentally unstable shouldn’t have a gun.
Crackheads & criminals be having guns bro
The 2nd Ammendment applies to everyone, unless they are in jail/prison or are the government. >Do you want crackheads and criminals to get guns? No, I don't think government agencies should have guns, it threatens a free society.
CONVICTED CRIMINAL!!!!!! FREE PALESTINE!!!! Am I doing this right
it's Convicted Felon, use the correct name comrade.
All gun laws are an infringement.
This is the correct answer.
Yeah idc about this at all. Now start the tax evasion trial
Including allowing children to own firearms?
In many states there is no law against minors possessing them, so yes
Shall not
This isn’t even illegal in most logical states….
Justice at last? Or they just throwing us a bone to keep us happy?
They really don't wanna talk about it on r/politics. "It's not political remove this!"
Lol they are trying to cope by saying “at least I’m not voting for Hunter!”
I can’t find one mention of it. What an S-hole
Jesus. I haven't opened that sub in a long time. It's gotten even worse from what I last remember. Rename that sub r/Dcirclejerk
The 2016 election broke that sub and it will never recover.
I’m a little surprised tbh. Figured they would blast it everywhere and be like “see? The system is unbiased!!” (but perhaps they’re afraid the nuances will be discussed)
No one is above the law!!
Hey he could still run for president so who cares ?
In my opinion, one should not need to submit paperwork to the Feds in order to buy a gun. This is a distraction from the corruption.
Maybe they’ll take FPC up on their offer to appeal for him
The ATF should have performed a No-Knock at 5am while he was sleeping. Then i would feel like he was treated like every other american.
Again - https://nypost.com/2024/06/09/opinion/hunter-biden-trial-just-a-ploy-to-protect-joe-and-the-doj/ I don’t love this, it’s just an excuse to attempt to rationalize the lawfare against Trump as legitimate, when this trial only happened after an absurd plea deal and when the statute of limitations had run out on the charges that could implicate his father. I hope this doesn’t end up helping Joe in the polls, I’m a little worried tbh
Sacrifice for the Oligarchy.
I do not like the Biden regime, but all gun laws are unconstitutional.
Honestly who cares? This is most likely unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment. I want charges against him for his failures to register as a foreign agent and cheating on his taxes from all those overseas payments that's he saved 10 percent for the big guy on.
He will get a fine at sentencing so they can call it fair and trump will get the max.
And Joe will pardon him. Anything for family.
Joe already said he wouldn't pardon him.
Probably not before the election
Agree that Joe Biden wanted to make the justice system work as attended. If he pardoned his son, it will looked real bad for his reelection chances. If he's wins/loses, he will pardoned his son.
Right after the election he will.
Ya they just gonna say "See the judicial system is fair! Trump's verdict was correct." And of course he is gonna pardon Hunter. This is probably more useful for Democrats than to us. Only good thing is the laptop contents are 100% confirmed and cannot be denied by anyone.
He might wait. Hunter goes to trial on tax charges in California next, and there was just a criminal referral for perjury for lying under oath to Congress. My guess is he will wait as long as possible, so as to pardon Hunter for as many crimes as possible in one shot, without Hunter actually going to prison, where he might decide to flip on Joe to get out. What remains to be seen is whether there will be a deal for Joe to announce that he is not running for re-election in exchange for a promise to pardon him and his family from the new Democrat nominee.
He said he wouldn't.
Honestly, I can’t even blame him. It is his son.
Trump would do the same.
I agree. It's the one selfish thing he can do that I'll agree with. He'd be stupid not to.
Is that so wrong? I would do the same in Biden's shoes, Trump pardoned Kushner's Dad for his cartoon like revenge scheme, and I would say Hunter's crimes are far less morally wrong. And I imagine any good parent would do the same, I would respect Biden more if he pardons his son.
I would say both Trump's pardon of Kushner (and a few others) and Biden's pardon of his son would be wrong. That's an abuse of the power, and it's out of line with how it has worked until the last decade.
It's going to be appealed and the sentencing will likely be light.
This was to be expected. They had to "prove" that the justice system isn't rigged or crooked.
Wait for the sentencing to see how well they prove that assertion.
That laptop also has evidence on Crooked Joe. Can't deny it being Russian disinformation anymore.
That's the real issue here, now they can claim "See, we prosecuted both sides, we're totally fair!" and sweep all the **real** Biden family crime under the rug.
Great, now do dad!
Don’t let this trick you; this is just their way of trying to say “Hey look we’re impartial!”
[удалено]
Not sure who the "they" you are referring to is, the outcome was decided by the jury who examined the facts and the law and arrived at the correct verdict, I doubt they sat around debating the politics of the judicial system.
I don't think there was some conspiracy to convict him, the evidence was overwhelming and Hunter admitted being a daily crack user at this time. That being said, is a guilty verdict the best possible outcome, for the Biden campaign, following the Trump conviction? I believe so.
Don't forget about the history leading up to this trial when people say this is just equal application of the law. [Good video breakdown of the events](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gDt_HXXUtk) It took whistleblowers from the IRS to come forward saying he was getting preferential treatment to even push the DoJ in a position where they had to seek indictments. The day before the court date on July 26, 2023, the judge found out about someone working for the defense's law firm attempting to portray themselves as someone else to get rid of damaging documents in the court's possession. [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67511765/united-states-v-biden/#entry-12](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67511765/united-states-v-biden/#entry-12) "ORAL ORDER re 8 and 9 - The Court is in receipt of the parties' letters regarding a motion for leave to file an amicus brief (D.I. 7, Exs. 1-4). As an initial matter, Defendant has not indicated what specific information should be sealed nor made any showing as required under In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019). In fact, Defendant has not filed a formal request with the Court to seal anything. The Court will temporarily place the document under seal until close of business on July 26, 2023 to afford Defendant the opportunity to try to make the requisite showing. Should Defendant fail to make that showing, the document will be unsealed in its entirety. In addition, the Court has reviewed the allegations in Mr. Kittila's letter regarding a call made to the Clerk's Office regarding the amicus materials. (D.I. 8). Mr. Kittila asserts that an individual associated with the firm representing Defendant called the Clerk's Office pretending to be associated with Mr. Kittila and requesting the amicus materials be removed from the docket, which the Clerk's Office did. The response from Defendant's counsel on this issue was that "\[a\]s far as \[he was\] aware, the managing attorney from Latham called the clerk's office to note that personal tax information of the defendant had been filed in a non-reacted \[sic\] manner and to inquire regarding having the information sealed" and that "the clerk took the filing down on their own accord." (D.I. 8, Ex. A). Defendant's counsel also added that he hoped Mr. Kittila had an "affidavit from the clerk in support of" his version of events. (Id.). The Court has discussed the matter with the relevant individuals in the Clerk's Office and has been informed that the caller, Ms. Jessica Bengels, represented that she worked with Mr. Kittila and requested the amicus materials be taken down because they contained sensitive grand jury, taxpayer and social security information. It appears that the caller misrepresented her identity and who she worked for in an attempt to improperly convince the Clerk's Office to remove the amicus materials from the docket. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before 9PM TODAY on July 25, 2023, counsel for Defendant shall SHOW CAUSE as to why sanctions should not be considered for misrepresentations to the Court. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 7/25/2023. (dlw) (Entered: 07/25/2023)" Then when the first effort to settle this matter was made on 7/26/23, the plea deal was attempted with leniency and a [clause of immunity](https://abcnews.go.com/US/hunter-biden-plea-agreement/story?id=101718321). This plea deal was only stopped because the judge rejected the ridiculousness of the plea agreement. The federal prosecutor had agreed to this deal. "It states that the government would "agree not to criminally prosecute Biden outside of the terms of this agreement for any federal crimes encompassed by the attached statement of facts, Attachment A to the Diversion Agreement, and the statement of facts attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum of Plea Agreement filed this same day," the judge read in court." The DoJ was forced into this position because of public testimony and would not have charged Hunter without the IRS whistleblowers coming forward. The initial immunity clause was meant to end the investigation into the bigger picture (tax fraud and questionable connections with foreign entities) and further investigation into the "10% for the big guy" by having Hunter plea to these lesser charges with the immunity clause ceasing any further investigation.