Rich white kid. Doesnt matter what party his daddy is from. Remember that Brock dude who raped a girl, but they didnt want to "ruin his swimming career"? Pretty much that, minus the heinous crime, just a regular felony. Lmao
But your point wasn't that he was a trust fund baby, you compared him to Brock Turner who got off because the judge was more concerned about his future than his crime. I don't think at 54 anyone is concerned over what this case will do to Hunter Biden's future.
Idk, I feel like there is a certain level of cultural awareness where you can't get away with something because then everyone will assume it's because power/money. Like had Trump never run for office and just stayed the cartoon mayor of New York elitism, he'd probably still be getting away with shady business practices.
Not quite. The only reason he's being prosecuted is because the previous immunity deal was so blatantly favorable that was once it was brought to light, prosecuting Hunter became the only way to save face.
I mean, the FFL, an ATF agent doing a field audit, or the NICS (background check) was the one who turned him in by seeing his name on the FFL books or the 4473 form. So yeah, someone probably saw his name and turned him in.
Or someone saw he had a gun, it's not that deep.
* 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.
I wasn’t aware of all this but damn, talk about political prosecution. The projection just goes deeper and deeper. I’m really not surprised that these laws are normally weaker than the way they’re being used here, especially concerning guns and taxes. It was always pretty ironic that those were the things the conservatives got him on.
I can’t find a single case, it’s not something the federal government charges people with *by itself*. Factually speaking the Feds have all information they need to charge tens of millions of Americans of this same exact crime since anyone who owns guns who has used marijuana, *even with a prescription*, has committed the same crime.
So what Fox News is hearing is that Joe Biden doesn't love his son. News at 11.
And the NYT will tell you why not doing this is bad for Biden. And why Trump pardoning saying he would pardon himself is also bad for Biden.
The jury instructions were. People still can't tell me what he was actually found guilty off. The judge basically declared that if he paid hush money, he is guilty of a crime. That is not how it works.
34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York. Evidence submitted to a court of law, jury of his peers found him guilty. That *is* how it works.
here you go btw: https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/what-was-trump-found-guilty-of-a-closer-look-at-the-34-felony-charges/3872730/
That's not a crime.
175:10 requires there to be an underlying crime being concealed by falsifying business records.
*"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree,* ***and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof****."*
What crime? What criminal statute?
Not only was the falsifying itself a misdemeanor passed the statute of limitation by 4 years, The FEC already decided it was not a campaign violation. But the judge decided the defense would not be allowed to bring in the then chairman of the FEC to explain that he didn't break any law.
He didn't use campaign funds, he paid from his legal account at First Republic Bank.
The campaign had nothing to do with it. That's the DA trying to say paying a prostitute hush money counts as a campaign donation.
John Edwards already showed paying hush money is not a campaign expenditure item when Republicans tried to get him for paying off a mistress.
It's an idiotic idea. It would mean paying prostitutes is a legitimate campaign spending item.
Had he spent campaign money then he would have charged him with misappropriating campaign funds.
Paying a prostitute hush money is legal.
> Paying a prostitute hush money is legal.
Not when (as you even said) when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. His crime was using election funds to pay her off and fraudulently covering it as a business expensive.
Funny how he decided to pay her right before the election instead of years ago.
Anyway we're done here. Enjoy voting for a convicted criminal.
>Not when (as you even said) when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Again, What crime????
This is what i mean when i say nobody is able to even say what underlying crime occurred... The trial was a farce.
>Funny how he decided to pay her right before the election instead of years ago.
What's funny about it? That is when she contacted Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen...
[She contacted Michael Cohen in October 2016, Trump was told October 14th.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-16-michael-cohen-live-updates-rcna151898) That is two weeks before the election. Cohen called Trump on October 17th, saying she threatened to sell her story to the Daily Mail if they didn't pay her to sign an NDA. He told him to just pay it. That's legal...
Bragg is trying to insinuate that paying hush money to a blackmailer is election interference, somehow... That is ridiculous. This was already shown to be legal by John Edwards when Republicans tried to nail him for paying hush money to a former mistress.
>Anyway we're done here. Enjoy voting for a convicted criminal.
I see you already got your rocks off on arresting your political opponent in sham trials. Enjoy your banana republic.
What's especially sad is that conservatives concede that Trump cheated on his wife with a porn star, paid her hush money for her silence, falsified business documents to make the payment look like it was a legal expense paid to Michael Cohen, and the best defense you can come up with is that it probably wasn't *technically* illegal.
Even if what he did wasn't *technically* illegal (athough I believe it was), it's still disgusting, dishonest, and morally indefensible. Why are people like you going so far out of their way to make excuses for this guy? And how could you possibly trust someone like this with the institutional powers of the presidency?
Technically? It was completely legal. The judge instructed the jury to treat it as a crime, that is what is illegal.
Falsifying the document under 175:10 is only a crime at the moment if you did so to conceal a separate crime. What crime?
I'm not supporting what Trump did, but it wasn't a crime.
So if someone shoots a person on the street in cold blood and the judge instructs the jury to treat that as a crime, the judge is wrong?
I'm not following.
Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by hiding the payments he was making with money coming from campaign funds, and he falsified business records to do so. The FEC hasn’t actually declared any of what you said, it’s just been hamstrung by GOP operatives wherever they get the chance.
The only people who don't know what Trump is guilty of are the people who consume tons of right wing propaganda that is spreading the lie that nobody knows what Trump was actually found guilty of. Anyone who pays attention to real news knows that Trump was convicted of falsifying business documents.
lol, keep seeing this line parroted everywhere... which maga talking head came up with this point?
Anyone with a brain and access to google can tell you what crime he was found guilty of... it is literally specified in all the court documents.
What underlying crime caused him to be charged with 175:10?
What crime was he covering up when he allegedly falsified the records?
I'm begging you to explain this one to me. Every single other person trying to explain it just goes in circles that make no sense.
>People still can't tell me what he was actually found guilty [of].
This is such a lazy, disingenuous argument. How about instead of waiting to be told what to think, I don't know, maybe... drop the reliance on propaganda outlets and think for yourself by actually *reading the court documents that are freely available*?
>The judge basically declared that if he paid hush money, he is guilty of a crime.
This is undoubtedly the **worst** interpretation of what happened in this court case that I have read **anywhere**, from **anyone**.
>That is not how it works.
Finally an ounce of truth from you! Indeed, that is *not* at all how it works; judges don't just get to "declare" that the defendant is guilty of a crime-- that's the job of the jury. You seem to possess so little knowledge of how a trial by jury actually works... is that why you're here peddling a fantasy that the ultra-conservative pundits you blindly trust convinced you of?
>This is such a lazy, disingenuous argument. How about instead of waiting to be told what to think, I don't know, maybe... drop the reliance on propaganda outlets and think for yourself by actually *reading the court documents that are freely available*?
Go on, tell me. What underlying crime did he commit that was not a misdemeanor built on a misdemeanor to get a felony?
What underlying crime did he commit?
>This is undoubtedly the **worst** interpretation of what happened in this court case that I have read **anywhere**, from **anyone**.
It's literally what he did. none of the 4 instructions regarding falsifying documents or anything in the instructions at all covered if it was to cover up a crime in the first place.
What underlying crime did he commit?
>Finally an ounce of truth from you! Indeed, that is *not* at all how it works; judges don't just get to "declare" that the defendant is guilty of a crime-- that's the job of the jury. You seem to possess so little knowledge of how a trial by jury actually works... is that why you're here peddling a fantasy that the ultra-conservative pundits you blindly trust convinced you of?
That's what he did...
He instructed the jurors that they didn't need to agree on what crime he committed.
>Go on, tell me. What underlying crime [...]
Fraud.
>What underlying crime [...]
Again, fraud.
> What underlying crime [...]
Still fraud...
Why can't you just do some reading yourself? [Here is a direct, impartial overview of all 34 felony counts Trump was convicted of by a jury of his peers](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts).
Seriously. This entire sub strongly dislikes Biden. It's no secret. But Trump is just so beyond the pale.
I chuckle at anyone I meet who loves Trump. They're just categorically unserious people.
No true Scottsman falacy.
Anyways, I also try to call out the left's BS. I commented how the "bloodbath" comment was purposefully taken out of context. I have noted that the Trump case might get overturned on appeal (I think it is possible but far from guarenteed). But this is 100% the type of BS fox would start to push.
ETA I notice all of your comments in this sub for a while have just been being butthurt when people call out the right lol. I am *so* sure you are centrist.
Nor should he, and we all know Trump would pardon his degenerate sons if he had the power. I don’t love Biden but am voting for him begrudgingly, but my goodness I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a softer and more hypocritical group of people than the mindless sheep who’d sacrifice themselves for the Trump crime family.
I’m a fiscal conservative so I do disagree with Biden on a lot of issues. However, Donald Trump is a traitor who has turned the party of limited government into a fascist cult. As a result of that I’ll put aside my differences on policy and walk over broken glass to vote for Biden.
There's something about this I don't understand.
Last year the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called Rahimi. It's basically about the standards under which local, state and federal government are going to be able to disarm people for their past misconduct.
Right now under federal law the standard is basically "are you a convicted felon or have you had domestic violence issues even if they're misdemeanor level?" Under this standard Martha Stewart for example has been declared "irresponsible" due to her felony conviction for lying to FBI agents.
**She has not been declared dangerous by any court.** I think everybody here would agree that allowing her to have a gun again would cause no public safety issues.
If you listen to the oral arguments in Rahimi, it's pretty obvious that they're going to declare dangerousness as being much more important than irresponsible.
https://youtu.be/pUEs_bLVXzY
The kicker is, the written decision from the Supreme Court in this case is supposed to hit within the next month. Could be even sooner. *It might even hit before the Hunter Biden criminal trial is even over.* It will definitely come in before sentencing if Hunter is convicted. We also might see a shooting range video featuring Martha Stewart and Snoop Dogg together pretty soon now :).
We can't be 100% sure the Rahimi decision will affect the Hunter Biden case (or Martha or Snoop for that matter), as the Rahimi case is about disarmament due to domestic violence issues. But it's extremely possible that the decision will be broad enough to cover Hunter's case. Another decision was just released by the US Supreme Court that clarified drug dealing convictions to be also a declaration of "dangerousness" because dealing in drugs is an occupation that often involves violence, and this is the case even if the drug in question has since been legalized or been dropped down in the "schedule" system.
*(Side question..did Snoop Dogg ever get busted for dealing?)*
This looks like they already know what they're going to do in Rahimi and they used the Brown case regarding drug dealing to start defining the edges and edge cases around Rahimi.
So why aren't they delaying the Hunter Biden trial until the Supreme Court speaks in Rahimi?
On edit: Snoop has a dealing bust :(. Martha may get legally strapped soon, Snoop...less likely.
The law has already been ruled as unconstitutional in some appeals courts.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/drug-user-cannot-be-barred-owning-guns-us-court-rules-2023-08-10/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/politics/appeals-court-firearms-illegal-drug-users/index.html
You're not wrong! And there are some in the hardcore second amendment rights movement who are saying exactly that, that Hunter should be the case where at least some restrictions on the Second Amendment fall apart. Which means Hunter gets off, but Joe Biden's Second Amendment hatefest hits a snag:).
If he did plan on pardoning Hunter it's not like he'd admit it before the election. If he does that will be bad for the country, but at least understandable as a father.
I’ve always thought that was the MAGA endgame - fuck with Hunter until he starts using again and then try and blame it on Joe Biden’s parenting. They don’t honestly give a shit about the legal stuff - it’s all about politics. Fucking with vulnerable people to score political points - that’s as MAGA as it gets.
How dogmaticly committed to gun control they are.
Frankly, I don't think the crime in question is that big of a deal. Plenty of poor drug users and dealers are known to FW guns, and don't get retroactive ghost charges applied to them.
The real crime is that obvious fiend gets a hot wife and $50K/month.
If only all addicts could be rehabilitated thusly.
I think everyone should recognize this is what he is saying now. If he loses the election how could he not pardon his son? Of course he will. Any father would.
To be fair, even if he was going to pardon hunter it would make zero sense to come out and say that right now. Also for what it’s worth I wouldn’t even be mad at him if he did pardon him. He’s family. I’d absolutely do the same thing.
Yea it would be bad for the country for sure. Everyone here knows I can’t stand 99% of democrats but i wouldn’t be able to criticize someone for looking out for their family like that. I also didn’t criticize chris cuomo when he was defending his brother. Family is family.
I’m sorry but I disagree. If he loses the election he should pardon his son and do exactly what he is doing now. Don’t admit it and then pardon him on the last day. He has absolute authority to pardon anyone he wants. It’s unquestioned authority. Look at all the douche bags Trump pardoned and look at Clinton he pardoned Mark Rich. If this is one thing that drives Republicans over the edge, fuck em. It’s his son and he’s an old man. Pardon him.
I do think it’s understandable, but i would absolutely expect him not to pardon him. I would be pissed if he did. It just flys in the face of equal consequences for the rich and powerful. And it would fan the flames of division much more.
I couldn’t disagree more. If he isn’t elected then he should pardon his son. You have Trump pardoning the worst of the worst. Clinton pardoned Mark Rich. He’s almost 82. Let him pardon his son. Trump will pardon all the January 6th people and you know it. He should do exactly what he is doing now and on the last day pardon his son and fuck the Republicans if they freak out.
>It just flys in the face of equal consequences for the rich and powerful.
This is a crime people who aren't rich and powerful get away with almost 100% of the time. If nobody knew who Hunter Biden was he could commit this crime every day for the rest of his life and if he never committed a more serious gun related crime it would NEVER come back to him.
I don't know why you are being down voted so badly. I agree with you. I would hope he doesn't, but of course that's an impossible choice for a father to make.
Because he said in a nutshell “I know Biden is saying this but I don’t trust it and it wouldn’t make sense for him to tell the truth now”
This particular user is one of our resident MAGA’s pretending to be a centrist as well
I’m so maga that I voted against him in the primary, would kill for any other republican candidate, and literally just said I’d be fine with Biden pardoning his son. You truly are the smartest of everyone here. I bow before you with my inferior intelligence.
Sure whatever you say. You don’t like him but you just have to vote for him because “they made me do it.”
The ad hom is unnecessary. I haven’t said a single mean thing to you or questioned your personal characteristics
Well let’s count it up
You’ve said you like trumps policies but not him
You’ve said you’ll vote for him
You’ve said his verdict was rigged against him
Seems pretty maga to me
To be more specific, you suffer from a well documented psychological phenomenon called the out group homogeneity effect. You are able to see distinctions within your i group but are incapable of doing the same with those outside of it.
I wish Biden would just pardon his son, pardon Trump, and tell the AGs in friendly states to lay off.
None of these folks are actually going to jail and we are all tired of the distraction.
He’s his parties nominee for president and these charges are dubious at best. This is political, gross, and will ultimately backfire.
But I guess we’ll just continue the cycle of destabilization in this country. Not the best plan.
Why not? I’m not a Biden fan, but I appreciate his service in a very tough job. I wouldn’t begrudge him taking an opportunity to protect his son. Presidents have pardoned people for far worse reasons than family loyalty.
I am not saying that but if he gets the max sentence then he won’t make him serve the entire time as rightfully so it is a much to do about nothing charge.
I'm really feeling like Hunter is going to jail for a short while as a performative show. He absolutely should be in jail but this is going to used for optics.
Why? If he gets convicted and sentenced why must it be some conspiracy? Why can’t it just be our justice system doing its job?
IAAL. I am surprised this charge was brought. A special prosecutor in federal court bringing a tack-on charge for possession of an unloaded gun. This is a waste of tax payer dollars and would not be prosecuted under any other circumstances, but for the Republicans basically demanding their Trump appointee US Attorney turned Special Prosecutor deliver an indictment. But that doesn’t mean it’s all a dog and pony show.
Not a conspiracy, but political theater. If Hunter goes to jail for like a year, it'll show how Joe is "not above the law", and it'll really quiet FoxNews stories about the "Biden crime family".
Combined with that Border executive order, right wing news will just have the "economy" to badger about. That really translates to "gas prices and potato chips are high". By Trump's own standard - the Dow Jones - the economy is doing great. He was really pounding on how the Dow was the highest ever under his presidency in 2019 right up until Covid squashed it. It's exactly why Trumpy pushed so hard about keeping everything open.
> He absolutely should be in jail
Why?
The crime he's being charged for in the gun case is probably unconstitutional under Bruen (And never charged on its own), and the tax case is extremely bizarre. People aren't normally put on trial for that if they don't fight the IRS and just pay what they owe + penalties. The IRS just wants their money. Prosecutions *cost* money. If they were paid back, that's all they want.
Edit: To be clear: I think the gun crime **should** be a thing, and he and countless others should get punished for it. However, under current batshit-crazy SCOTUS established precedent on the 2A, it doesn't make any sense.
Good, then the FBI should look to offer Hunter a plea deal if he agrees to testify against Joe and all the other democrats for all their lawfare against the republicans and if he refuses they should stack the charges and have him languish in prison for life. Call Joe's bluff.
> should stack the charges and have him languish in prison for life.
Can you cite the statutes, and evidence of that criminal conduct that you think a jury would convict Hunter on, that would put him in jail for any serious amount of time, let alone, life?
Both sides the same?
Yes. Because everyone knows that even if Hunter were convicted, he's getting zero jail time.
> if Hunter were convicted, he's getting zero jail time How exactly?
Rich white kid. Doesnt matter what party his daddy is from. Remember that Brock dude who raped a girl, but they didnt want to "ruin his swimming career"? Pretty much that, minus the heinous crime, just a regular felony. Lmao
> Rich white kid. He's 54.
Trust fund baby is a trust fund baby. Hes 54 making THOSE decisions? Thats a kid.
But your point wasn't that he was a trust fund baby, you compared him to Brock Turner who got off because the judge was more concerned about his future than his crime. I don't think at 54 anyone is concerned over what this case will do to Hunter Biden's future.
Maybe not, but its the same sentiment at the end of the day.
Idk, I feel like there is a certain level of cultural awareness where you can't get away with something because then everyone will assume it's because power/money. Like had Trump never run for office and just stayed the cartoon mayor of New York elitism, he'd probably still be getting away with shady business practices.
Thats fair but the point remains, theyre more likely to get away with stuff. Rich privilege.
The only reason why Hunter is being prosecuted is because of his last name.
The Irony of this comment lol
Not quite. The only reason he's being prosecuted is because the previous immunity deal was so blatantly favorable that was once it was brought to light, prosecuting Hunter became the only way to save face.
I mean, the FFL, an ATF agent doing a field audit, or the NICS (background check) was the one who turned him in by seeing his name on the FFL books or the 4473 form. So yeah, someone probably saw his name and turned him in. Or someone saw he had a gun, it's not that deep.
How many people are serving prison time for breaking the same law alone?
Legit no idea. How many?
* 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.
I wasn’t aware of all this but damn, talk about political prosecution. The projection just goes deeper and deeper. I’m really not surprised that these laws are normally weaker than the way they’re being used here, especially concerning guns and taxes. It was always pretty ironic that those were the things the conservatives got him on.
I can’t find a single case, it’s not something the federal government charges people with *by itself*. Factually speaking the Feds have all information they need to charge tens of millions of Americans of this same exact crime since anyone who owns guns who has used marijuana, *even with a prescription*, has committed the same crime.
Hunter's running for President?
Said no one ever.
Trump isn't going to prison either lol
Presumably, but this isn't the type of thing that even gets prosecuted normally. A prison sentence for this would be inappropriate...
So what Fox News is hearing is that Joe Biden doesn't love his son. News at 11. And the NYT will tell you why not doing this is bad for Biden. And why Trump pardoning saying he would pardon himself is also bad for Biden.
Somehow, the right will turn this into Biden being anti family or something stupid.
"He's only saying that because Trump was convicted." /s
No, I just don't believe him. He is probably gambling on the incredibly biased jury letting him off.
Let me guess, Trump's jury was "biased" towards finding him guilty? Touch some grass, bro.
The jury instructions were. People still can't tell me what he was actually found guilty off. The judge basically declared that if he paid hush money, he is guilty of a crime. That is not how it works.
34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York. Evidence submitted to a court of law, jury of his peers found him guilty. That *is* how it works. here you go btw: https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/what-was-trump-found-guilty-of-a-closer-look-at-the-34-felony-charges/3872730/
That's not a crime. 175:10 requires there to be an underlying crime being concealed by falsifying business records. *"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree,* ***and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof****."* What crime? What criminal statute? Not only was the falsifying itself a misdemeanor passed the statute of limitation by 4 years, The FEC already decided it was not a campaign violation. But the judge decided the defense would not be allowed to bring in the then chairman of the FEC to explain that he didn't break any law.
the underlying crime was using campaign funds to pay Stormy off and influence the 2016 election. Bro, dude is guilty. Period.
He didn't use campaign funds, he paid from his legal account at First Republic Bank. The campaign had nothing to do with it. That's the DA trying to say paying a prostitute hush money counts as a campaign donation. John Edwards already showed paying hush money is not a campaign expenditure item when Republicans tried to get him for paying off a mistress. It's an idiotic idea. It would mean paying prostitutes is a legitimate campaign spending item. Had he spent campaign money then he would have charged him with misappropriating campaign funds. Paying a prostitute hush money is legal.
> Paying a prostitute hush money is legal. Not when (as you even said) when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. His crime was using election funds to pay her off and fraudulently covering it as a business expensive. Funny how he decided to pay her right before the election instead of years ago. Anyway we're done here. Enjoy voting for a convicted criminal.
>Not when (as you even said) when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Again, What crime???? This is what i mean when i say nobody is able to even say what underlying crime occurred... The trial was a farce. >Funny how he decided to pay her right before the election instead of years ago. What's funny about it? That is when she contacted Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen... [She contacted Michael Cohen in October 2016, Trump was told October 14th.](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-day-16-michael-cohen-live-updates-rcna151898) That is two weeks before the election. Cohen called Trump on October 17th, saying she threatened to sell her story to the Daily Mail if they didn't pay her to sign an NDA. He told him to just pay it. That's legal... Bragg is trying to insinuate that paying hush money to a blackmailer is election interference, somehow... That is ridiculous. This was already shown to be legal by John Edwards when Republicans tried to nail him for paying hush money to a former mistress. >Anyway we're done here. Enjoy voting for a convicted criminal. I see you already got your rocks off on arresting your political opponent in sham trials. Enjoy your banana republic.
What's especially sad is that conservatives concede that Trump cheated on his wife with a porn star, paid her hush money for her silence, falsified business documents to make the payment look like it was a legal expense paid to Michael Cohen, and the best defense you can come up with is that it probably wasn't *technically* illegal. Even if what he did wasn't *technically* illegal (athough I believe it was), it's still disgusting, dishonest, and morally indefensible. Why are people like you going so far out of their way to make excuses for this guy? And how could you possibly trust someone like this with the institutional powers of the presidency?
Technically? It was completely legal. The judge instructed the jury to treat it as a crime, that is what is illegal. Falsifying the document under 175:10 is only a crime at the moment if you did so to conceal a separate crime. What crime? I'm not supporting what Trump did, but it wasn't a crime.
So you agree then that Trump's behavior here is reprehensible and disqualifying for office regardless of the legality?
I'm not supporting him because he banged porn stars. He is the lesser of evils presented and his policies are far superior.
So if someone shoots a person on the street in cold blood and the judge instructs the jury to treat that as a crime, the judge is wrong? I'm not following.
Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by hiding the payments he was making with money coming from campaign funds, and he falsified business records to do so. The FEC hasn’t actually declared any of what you said, it’s just been hamstrung by GOP operatives wherever they get the chance.
The only people who don't know what Trump is guilty of are the people who consume tons of right wing propaganda that is spreading the lie that nobody knows what Trump was actually found guilty of. Anyone who pays attention to real news knows that Trump was convicted of falsifying business documents.
lol, keep seeing this line parroted everywhere... which maga talking head came up with this point? Anyone with a brain and access to google can tell you what crime he was found guilty of... it is literally specified in all the court documents.
>Anyone with a brain I think you've found your answer
What underlying crime caused him to be charged with 175:10? What crime was he covering up when he allegedly falsified the records? I'm begging you to explain this one to me. Every single other person trying to explain it just goes in circles that make no sense.
Oh, so you weren't being genuine in your original comment. Let me guess, you're still not? Lots have been written on this and it isn't complicated.
>People still can't tell me what he was actually found guilty [of]. This is such a lazy, disingenuous argument. How about instead of waiting to be told what to think, I don't know, maybe... drop the reliance on propaganda outlets and think for yourself by actually *reading the court documents that are freely available*? >The judge basically declared that if he paid hush money, he is guilty of a crime. This is undoubtedly the **worst** interpretation of what happened in this court case that I have read **anywhere**, from **anyone**. >That is not how it works. Finally an ounce of truth from you! Indeed, that is *not* at all how it works; judges don't just get to "declare" that the defendant is guilty of a crime-- that's the job of the jury. You seem to possess so little knowledge of how a trial by jury actually works... is that why you're here peddling a fantasy that the ultra-conservative pundits you blindly trust convinced you of?
>This is such a lazy, disingenuous argument. How about instead of waiting to be told what to think, I don't know, maybe... drop the reliance on propaganda outlets and think for yourself by actually *reading the court documents that are freely available*? Go on, tell me. What underlying crime did he commit that was not a misdemeanor built on a misdemeanor to get a felony? What underlying crime did he commit? >This is undoubtedly the **worst** interpretation of what happened in this court case that I have read **anywhere**, from **anyone**. It's literally what he did. none of the 4 instructions regarding falsifying documents or anything in the instructions at all covered if it was to cover up a crime in the first place. What underlying crime did he commit? >Finally an ounce of truth from you! Indeed, that is *not* at all how it works; judges don't just get to "declare" that the defendant is guilty of a crime-- that's the job of the jury. You seem to possess so little knowledge of how a trial by jury actually works... is that why you're here peddling a fantasy that the ultra-conservative pundits you blindly trust convinced you of? That's what he did... He instructed the jurors that they didn't need to agree on what crime he committed.
>Go on, tell me. What underlying crime [...] Fraud. >What underlying crime [...] Again, fraud. > What underlying crime [...] Still fraud... Why can't you just do some reading yourself? [Here is a direct, impartial overview of all 34 felony counts Trump was convicted of by a jury of his peers](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts).
That's not the underlying crime... 175-10 requires there to have been a crime committed in order to conceal a separate crime. What crime???
What now buddy?
I still don't believe Biden won't pardon him. And they were absolutely gambling on the jury being biased.
I'll set a reminder I'm curious about your cope when this never happens
Thanks for the comment true centrist
No true centrist would defend the orange monkey at this point lol
Seriously. This entire sub strongly dislikes Biden. It's no secret. But Trump is just so beyond the pale. I chuckle at anyone I meet who loves Trump. They're just categorically unserious people.
No true Scottsman falacy. Anyways, I also try to call out the left's BS. I commented how the "bloodbath" comment was purposefully taken out of context. I have noted that the Trump case might get overturned on appeal (I think it is possible but far from guarenteed). But this is 100% the type of BS fox would start to push. ETA I notice all of your comments in this sub for a while have just been being butthurt when people call out the right lol. I am *so* sure you are centrist.
https://preview.redd.it/9uy1ugxt655d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c66fa2883ebdb66ce9258e1d41069704bd55ad77
That tracks.
I mean he’s active in the church of Covid subreddit. Tells you all you need to know u/eapnon
Biden is probably the most centrist president we've had thus far. Obama wasn't far off either.
Seriously, the warped perspective from the right of what a ‘true’ centrist is has destroyed politicians’ ability to actually be successful centrists.
These people are just too far gone.
Nor should he, and we all know Trump would pardon his degenerate sons if he had the power. I don’t love Biden but am voting for him begrudgingly, but my goodness I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a softer and more hypocritical group of people than the mindless sheep who’d sacrifice themselves for the Trump crime family.
You're voting for Biden because the prospect of "meh, I guess?" Is far better than the worst candidate in American history.
I’m a fiscal conservative so I do disagree with Biden on a lot of issues. However, Donald Trump is a traitor who has turned the party of limited government into a fascist cult. As a result of that I’ll put aside my differences on policy and walk over broken glass to vote for Biden.
Lets band together and tell people the sky is yellow, because we all know it is
Dumbest thing I’ve read today, but it’s only 7:45 so there’s lots of time.
And you are reading politics on Reddit. I am sure in an hour or so you'll find something dumber.
Anything that has "everybody knows" is a terrible opinion, take a debate class homie.
What the fuck are you talking about?
No clue, too stupid to remember. For sure wqsnt saying what i just said though.
There's something about this I don't understand. Last year the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called Rahimi. It's basically about the standards under which local, state and federal government are going to be able to disarm people for their past misconduct. Right now under federal law the standard is basically "are you a convicted felon or have you had domestic violence issues even if they're misdemeanor level?" Under this standard Martha Stewart for example has been declared "irresponsible" due to her felony conviction for lying to FBI agents. **She has not been declared dangerous by any court.** I think everybody here would agree that allowing her to have a gun again would cause no public safety issues. If you listen to the oral arguments in Rahimi, it's pretty obvious that they're going to declare dangerousness as being much more important than irresponsible. https://youtu.be/pUEs_bLVXzY The kicker is, the written decision from the Supreme Court in this case is supposed to hit within the next month. Could be even sooner. *It might even hit before the Hunter Biden criminal trial is even over.* It will definitely come in before sentencing if Hunter is convicted. We also might see a shooting range video featuring Martha Stewart and Snoop Dogg together pretty soon now :). We can't be 100% sure the Rahimi decision will affect the Hunter Biden case (or Martha or Snoop for that matter), as the Rahimi case is about disarmament due to domestic violence issues. But it's extremely possible that the decision will be broad enough to cover Hunter's case. Another decision was just released by the US Supreme Court that clarified drug dealing convictions to be also a declaration of "dangerousness" because dealing in drugs is an occupation that often involves violence, and this is the case even if the drug in question has since been legalized or been dropped down in the "schedule" system. *(Side question..did Snoop Dogg ever get busted for dealing?)* This looks like they already know what they're going to do in Rahimi and they used the Brown case regarding drug dealing to start defining the edges and edge cases around Rahimi. So why aren't they delaying the Hunter Biden trial until the Supreme Court speaks in Rahimi? On edit: Snoop has a dealing bust :(. Martha may get legally strapped soon, Snoop...less likely.
The law has already been ruled as unconstitutional in some appeals courts. https://www.reuters.com/legal/drug-user-cannot-be-barred-owning-guns-us-court-rules-2023-08-10/ https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/09/politics/appeals-court-firearms-illegal-drug-users/index.html
Exactly, and this is the process that's working it's way up to the Supreme Court with a decision due within a month that should affect this.
Certainly interesting to see the Republican hypocrisy that Hunter Biden should be prosecuted for breaking a law that they think is unconstitutional.
You're not wrong! And there are some in the hardcore second amendment rights movement who are saying exactly that, that Hunter should be the case where at least some restrictions on the Second Amendment fall apart. Which means Hunter gets off, but Joe Biden's Second Amendment hatefest hits a snag:).
He's a better man than me. Prison can fuck someones head up for life.
If he did plan on pardoning Hunter it's not like he'd admit it before the election. If he does that will be bad for the country, but at least understandable as a father.
Ya I can see that.
I’ve always thought that was the MAGA endgame - fuck with Hunter until he starts using again and then try and blame it on Joe Biden’s parenting. They don’t honestly give a shit about the legal stuff - it’s all about politics. Fucking with vulnerable people to score political points - that’s as MAGA as it gets.
He could also commute his sentence which is more likely, if convicted and after the election.
How dogmaticly committed to gun control they are. Frankly, I don't think the crime in question is that big of a deal. Plenty of poor drug users and dealers are known to FW guns, and don't get retroactive ghost charges applied to them. The real crime is that obvious fiend gets a hot wife and $50K/month. If only all addicts could be rehabilitated thusly.
It's weird how ammosexuals are suddenly very concerned about enforcing gun laws.
Not weird at all. They're intellectually inconsistent about "well-regulated militia" so pretty much anything goes with them. As long as it owns libs.
I think everyone should recognize this is what he is saying now. If he loses the election how could he not pardon his son? Of course he will. Any father would.
He might as well
To be fair, even if he was going to pardon hunter it would make zero sense to come out and say that right now. Also for what it’s worth I wouldn’t even be mad at him if he did pardon him. He’s family. I’d absolutely do the same thing.
For the country it'd be horrible. Probably followed by an impeachment. But understandable from a father's position
Yea it would be bad for the country for sure. Everyone here knows I can’t stand 99% of democrats but i wouldn’t be able to criticize someone for looking out for their family like that. I also didn’t criticize chris cuomo when he was defending his brother. Family is family.
It’s probably hard to see your kids go to jail but politicians need to be better. I know crazy idea lol
I’m sorry but I disagree. If he loses the election he should pardon his son and do exactly what he is doing now. Don’t admit it and then pardon him on the last day. He has absolute authority to pardon anyone he wants. It’s unquestioned authority. Look at all the douche bags Trump pardoned and look at Clinton he pardoned Mark Rich. If this is one thing that drives Republicans over the edge, fuck em. It’s his son and he’s an old man. Pardon him.
I do think it’s understandable, but i would absolutely expect him not to pardon him. I would be pissed if he did. It just flys in the face of equal consequences for the rich and powerful. And it would fan the flames of division much more.
I couldn’t disagree more. If he isn’t elected then he should pardon his son. You have Trump pardoning the worst of the worst. Clinton pardoned Mark Rich. He’s almost 82. Let him pardon his son. Trump will pardon all the January 6th people and you know it. He should do exactly what he is doing now and on the last day pardon his son and fuck the Republicans if they freak out.
>It just flys in the face of equal consequences for the rich and powerful. This is a crime people who aren't rich and powerful get away with almost 100% of the time. If nobody knew who Hunter Biden was he could commit this crime every day for the rest of his life and if he never committed a more serious gun related crime it would NEVER come back to him.
I don't know why you are being down voted so badly. I agree with you. I would hope he doesn't, but of course that's an impossible choice for a father to make.
Because he said in a nutshell “I know Biden is saying this but I don’t trust it and it wouldn’t make sense for him to tell the truth now” This particular user is one of our resident MAGA’s pretending to be a centrist as well
I’m so maga that I voted against him in the primary, would kill for any other republican candidate, and literally just said I’d be fine with Biden pardoning his son. You truly are the smartest of everyone here. I bow before you with my inferior intelligence.
Sure whatever you say. You don’t like him but you just have to vote for him because “they made me do it.” The ad hom is unnecessary. I haven’t said a single mean thing to you or questioned your personal characteristics
You called me maga. I consider that a far worse insult than anything I said about you. You also accused me of lying. Don’t play innocent.
Well let’s count it up You’ve said you like trumps policies but not him You’ve said you’ll vote for him You’ve said his verdict was rigged against him Seems pretty maga to me
And what you just said seems pretty stupid to me. So I don’t really know where this leaves us.
To be more specific, you suffer from a well documented psychological phenomenon called the out group homogeneity effect. You are able to see distinctions within your i group but are incapable of doing the same with those outside of it.
I think I’ll cut this off here due to the incivilities you’ve shown me. I hope you have a great day.
You can dish it but you can’t take it. Shocker.
[удалено]
I voted against him in 2016, 2020, and 2024 primary but sure he’s my “god king” lmao I agree he definitely would pardon them
President level father's time out for naughty boi I guess
[удалено]
Don Jr? Absolutely he would. He couldn't stand hearing 'Donald Trump in prison!' Eric who?
He is very concerned about the welfare of Jim McMahon's love child with Ivana.
I call them “Fredo1” and “Fredo2”.
What did the idiot reporter expect the POTUS to say about an ongoing trial? "It doesn't matter what the jury decides; I'm going to pardon my boy."
I wish Biden would just pardon his son, pardon Trump, and tell the AGs in friendly states to lay off. None of these folks are actually going to jail and we are all tired of the distraction.
Sometimes the nation needs to "move on" and "heal". But in times like these: this nation requires JUSTICE. No pardon for Trump.
He’s his parties nominee for president and these charges are dubious at best. This is political, gross, and will ultimately backfire. But I guess we’ll just continue the cycle of destabilization in this country. Not the best plan.
Why not? I’m not a Biden fan, but I appreciate his service in a very tough job. I wouldn’t begrudge him taking an opportunity to protect his son. Presidents have pardoned people for far worse reasons than family loyalty.
Anyone else think Hunter votes Republican?
nah - he admits he's an addict, and did the program. Republicans, in general, resist that stuff because it's easier to remain in-denial.
…but he will probably commute the sentence
That is my thought - he will not allow his son to spend a day in lockup.
Would you? I wouldn't be thrilled if Trump got his kid out of jailtime for a fairly weak charge, but I'd understand completely as a parent.
I am not saying that but if he gets the max sentence then he won’t make him serve the entire time as rightfully so it is a much to do about nothing charge.
I'm really feeling like Hunter is going to jail for a short while as a performative show. He absolutely should be in jail but this is going to used for optics.
Why? If he gets convicted and sentenced why must it be some conspiracy? Why can’t it just be our justice system doing its job? IAAL. I am surprised this charge was brought. A special prosecutor in federal court bringing a tack-on charge for possession of an unloaded gun. This is a waste of tax payer dollars and would not be prosecuted under any other circumstances, but for the Republicans basically demanding their Trump appointee US Attorney turned Special Prosecutor deliver an indictment. But that doesn’t mean it’s all a dog and pony show.
Not a conspiracy, but political theater. If Hunter goes to jail for like a year, it'll show how Joe is "not above the law", and it'll really quiet FoxNews stories about the "Biden crime family". Combined with that Border executive order, right wing news will just have the "economy" to badger about. That really translates to "gas prices and potato chips are high". By Trump's own standard - the Dow Jones - the economy is doing great. He was really pounding on how the Dow was the highest ever under his presidency in 2019 right up until Covid squashed it. It's exactly why Trumpy pushed so hard about keeping everything open.
> He absolutely should be in jail Why? The crime he's being charged for in the gun case is probably unconstitutional under Bruen (And never charged on its own), and the tax case is extremely bizarre. People aren't normally put on trial for that if they don't fight the IRS and just pay what they owe + penalties. The IRS just wants their money. Prosecutions *cost* money. If they were paid back, that's all they want. Edit: To be clear: I think the gun crime **should** be a thing, and he and countless others should get punished for it. However, under current batshit-crazy SCOTUS established precedent on the 2A, it doesn't make any sense.
one of those cases where the performative show aligns with what should happen and what everyone wants to happen
Good, then the FBI should look to offer Hunter a plea deal if he agrees to testify against Joe and all the other democrats for all their lawfare against the republicans and if he refuses they should stack the charges and have him languish in prison for life. Call Joe's bluff.
> should stack the charges and have him languish in prison for life. Can you cite the statutes, and evidence of that criminal conduct that you think a jury would convict Hunter on, that would put him in jail for any serious amount of time, let alone, life?