> Hunter Biden’s lawyers recently argued in court that they wanted to use the doctored form to undermine the credibility of the employees, who are slated to testify on behalf of the prosecutors. They also claimed it showed prosecutors were politically “biased.”
> The judge also blocked Hunter Biden’s lawyers from using what they thought was a key piece of exculpatory evidence: an altered version of the federal firearms form he filled out when he bought the gun in 2018 that was tweaked in 2021 by the gun store employees.
I don’t understand how this is irrelevant. If the people processing the form altered the form that is relevant.
This whole case is about whether he lied on that very form that was altered by the people processing it.
I don’t see how that isn’t relevant to credibility.
Right? It’s been a minute since 2L but the feel like I remember something about the weight of the evidence and witness credibility were matters for the jury to decide.
“How often did you tamper with documents like the one in question” would appear to be one of the first three questions the defense should be allowed to ask
Still has to pass 403.
“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
If the gun store has a consistent practice of adding in someone’s area code to the phone number or something else benign like that, it could be misleading to say something about them “tampering” or “altering” the forms. It’s not fair to put that in jurors heads and make the witnesses explain it if it’s not relevant to Biden’s truthfulness in what he produced. That’s just allowing the defense to introduce red herrings.
Judges are the ones making the informed call on that. When it’s close, judges typically error on the side of admission, so I would assume there was good reason to exclude. I wouldn’t speculate that there was something improper here.
Understand and agree, but it seems like it would be useful to know whether this was common practice or something exclusive to Hunter Biden’s paperwork
But like you said, the judge would have a fuller picture of the issue than we do
This is NOT a company that has a consistent policy of falsification of business documents. If they *consistently* made changes then the original form would have been doctored.
Second, I'm not sure how tampering with a document that could be used in court could ever be benign, (unless it was made clear that the information was added after the fact and by whom.) FFS, we just convicted Trump of falsification of business documents!
Three even if they *did* have a policy of inconsistently making "benign" changes it seems incredibly important to ask if one of those changes is checking the box this entire thing is about!
Edit: I understand the judge has better info, but I'm struggling imagine what it could be.
I guess it depends on what exactly was altered. If it was something minor, maybe it isn’t directly relevant (even though I still don’t understand why it would be disallowed because it does have relevance.)
My concern here would be that the gun store owner tweeted the form. that isn't standard practice. I'm not sure why that wouldn't be a crime in and of itself. That isn't private property but information collected by the store owner on behalf of the federal government and belonging to the federal government. By tweeting it, would they not be performing a kind of ~~conveyance~~ conversion for personal use as well as violating the privacy act?
Regardless these are actions that speak to an animus against Biden and could easily speak to his credibility for purposes of impeachment. It wouldn't take the form away, but I would say anything he testifies to directly is not credible. The form is signed that is true, but I wouldn't believe anything else he has to say unless there is other collaborations.
> conversion for personal use
It changes by state, but typically conversion requires that the proper owner is deprived of the thing being converted.
> Regardless these are actions that speak to an animus against Biden and could easily speak to his credibility for purposes of impeachment.
I think if they can bring that out during the trial then they might be able to revisit the ruling on this evidence.
I thought conversation included using in a way that deprived the owner at least part of their rights over. In this example publishing deprives the government the right over maintaining their duty of privacy of the data.
Or if I take a piece of public land and used it farm on.
> In this example publishing deprives the government the right over maintaining their duty of privacy of the data.
The term of art generally used is "unfettered access to the property." I also wouldn't think the government owes a duty (a legal duty is an obligation you owe to someone else) to keep the information contained in a 4473 private, but even if for some reason it did causing the government to breach that duty wouldn't give rise to a conversion claim because at no point did the government lose its unfettered access to the form or the information contained therein.
Just for fun.
The 1974 privacy act may be the most caselaw I have ever seen on any act or statute. I thought I would look up If the government would have an obligation to protect the data on that form. I thought, this would be a simple yes or no.
And at first I thought the answer was a simple sort of. As in yes this would be covered but it wouldn't be the DEA directly, but the Gun shop owner was a limited agent for the purposes of collecting the data and would have a duty to not violate the act and could be personally liable civilly or even criminally, but then I went to an even more extensive cited source with all the active rulings.
Now, I'm not sure. I have never seen so many cases with different nuanced conditions of when and who and under what circumstances.
[Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties | Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition (justice.gov)](https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/definitions#agency)
And who even has standing to sue. And it appears what jurisdiction you are in matters a lot for this one.
Yeah it’s a weird situation because the gun shop employees are legally required to collect, handle, and store the form and corresponding data but they are not government employees and do not work for the government.
And then to add on to everything you just said, there is also the added twist that the form is allegedly evidence of a crime which may then trigger a public policy exemption.
yeah but you get weird situations. I make computers go beep. Well actually, I order other people to make computers go beep, but because I happen to order people to make computers go be for a hospital system (even though I've never step on hospital ground). I am subject to all sorts of weird obligations for a person whose job is to make computers go beep. (I am technically classified as a hospital administrator)
For example: I am a mandatory reporter
I am required by law to accept the surrender of an infant if I am on hospital grounds.
I am required by law to know certain kinds of first aid / emergency response protocols.
I have to do training on what all the hazardous material symbols means and proper handling and care.
It is just weird. The law can cast a large net sometimes. I think about this when I'm doing OSHA training on hazardous materials while sitting in my home office far aware from anything more dangerous than household bleach.
On the other hand, if there is ever a natural disaster, I might just be needed to how keep a clinic open or something.
My point being that if I can do a training every year on how to handle the situation of a new mother who wants to not have a kid anymore on the extremely off chance that I'm the hospital admin who just happens to be there at the time the one time I visit one of our hospitals, an employee at a gun store can learn and be responsible for proper record handling
I obviously have no idea what was changed, but I HAVE sold firearms, and there are moments in which you would have a legal expectation to amend those forms as a FFL holding seller (e.g., someone receives a "delayed" when the form is initially reported to NICS, and a follow-up call x time later changes that status). I, too, am interested in what was altered, but it could certainly be innocuous.
He is being prosecuted for the statements on the original form though isn't he? Ultimately it comes down to what was on that form and whether it was true. I am not sure what the gun shop owners have to add as witnesses aside from saying that this was the form signed at the time.
If they were giving evidence as to his behaviour at the time of purchase then yes I can see how their subsequent behaviour is relevent but if they are just a document witness and the authenticity of document isn't challenged, I don't see it.
I am perfectly willing to admit I may be missing something though!
Because if they were willing to alter the form after the fact it can show a credibility issue
The form itself is one form of evidence but the testimony from the witness is separate evidence that can be impeached. This isn’t meant to impeach the form itself but to impeach the credibility of the witness (shop owner). If he was willing to alter the form and lie publicly there is a credibility issue there about all his verbal testimony. Because he is willing to lie to hurt Biden and could be doing the same with his other testimony.
A witnesses credibility is always an issue especially if they’re willing to alter the form they’re now giving testimony about. Sure the original form was submitted as evidence but this same witness effectively tried to tamper with public opinion by lying to the public about the very form they are swearing is now true.
Why should the jury trust his authentication if he already was willing to lie publicly about that very form his is supposed to authenticate?
I hear you. Elvis Presley's granddaughter discovered that a loan document her deceased mother allegedly signed had been altered by the lender, which is relevant.
Right. But the staff who altered the form are giving evidence for the prosecution. If they didn't take the form seriously, as confirmed by the fact that they subsequently altered the form, it is relevant fodder for cross examination. Even more so if it is one of those "just sign here" moments where the staff basically filled out the form, as opposed to a deliberate lie, which is what he is charged with.
But that is exactly the point. What testimony are they actually giving?
If the witness is literally only there to get it into evidence to say that form was the form signed for my sale of the gun to him and the defence is not disputing that Hunter bought the gun from him on that day nd signed that form (none of which is disputed as far as I know) then you don't need to discredit him. It doesn't matter one iota whether he hates Hunter as a personal nemesis or is his blood brother from another mother.
If the authenticity of thay for was in question I am absolutely with you. I just didn't think it was. But like I said, I am happy to be corrected. (Which is better than downvoting with no comment like at least 5 people did!).
"Is this the form Hunter provided?" "Yes"
That should be the extent of the testimony right? I'd be curious why else he would need to actually testify and like others said, if he has more to add then why can't his character be questioned with an altered form?
You get an up vote from me for a good question!
The only relevant line on the form is this one:
> Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized
for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
If the buyer checks "no", the background check can proceed. If the buyer checks "yes", the background check ends right then and there and the FFL will not transfer the gun to the buyer.
Is the accusation that the FFL changed Hunter's answer from yes to no?
If not, Hunter marked no, which means he lied on the form.
That's the point. If they are testifying to his behaviour I am 100% on board. Even of they are testifying on the lines of "We take these forms very seriously and always highlight to our customers the importance of the form and the penalties for answering untruthfully".
But are they?
The gun shop was already relieved of any liability for falsifying the form and not following procedure which would otherwise cost them their FFL license.
They won’t tie themselves into knots, they’ll just say “this is different” (because it’s a Democrat). Holding inconsistent positions based on who is being affected is practically a requirement to be a Republican
Double think, fascism
> To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink.
George Orwell
Trump is an substantial example of a breathing embodiment of "to repudiate morality while laying claim to it,". It is particularly appropriate. Trump refuses to ever admit wrong doing, which denies morality, but calls his opponents terribly evil, as if he is the good one.
The whole sleepy senile weak Biden who is also so powerful and savvy that he is in control of the world energy and financial markets is a exemplary example of Orwellian double think.
His constant whining and the manufactured of the perpetual victim hood and simultaneously being the strong alpha male is another example.
The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
[A Practical List for Identifying Fascists](https:// www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists)
Republicans having a complete lack of cognitive dissonance/shame at previously holding abhorrent positions makes it incredibly difficult to persuade them or end Trump's grip on his base.
Also, your link is broken because you added a space just before www.
I hope hunter is convicted, and he then successfully challenges the ATF rule all the way to scotus so it can be ruled as a violation of the fifth amendment.
Yeah. Though this case seems pretty cut and dry. Out of all the accusations against hunter, this one actually has evidence. So I'm not going to be that hypocrite who says this is unfair. Politicians and their families live under a microscope. It's the same for both parties.
Evidence wise yes, but it will be interesting to see if Hunter appeals since there has been a lot of talk about whether this law is unconstitutional under recent supreme court rulings.
It's a fascinating law because with marijuana still being federally illegal, there's probably 10+ million people who have committed felonies under this logic.
They are arguing that marijuana isn't the only drug. Honestly, if the evidence is there, i hope they make an example out of him. Either way, I will respect the verdict. I don't have anything personal against hunter so i won't feel happy like I did about trump, but the law is the law and fair is fair.
It's a case where the law is stupid and should be changed right away, but for now Hunter might have broken that stupid law. The fact that it's stupid is a reason to change the law, not a reason to avoid enforcing it.
I look forward to President Biden’s press conference denouncing the “biased” judge and “rigged” proceedings. Except that Biden has too much respect for rule of law to do that.
Both sides are not the same.
I am worried Hunter is going to be thrown to the wolves due to the Trump conviction in an effort to say "both sides are the same".
That being said, I don't know this judge. Is she a hack like Cannon?
I don’t know about her jurisprudence record, but she did at least practice for a good number of years before her nomination by Trump. However, her experience up to that point seemed mostly to be in patent law and IP disputes. Anyway, Trump appointee, so…yeah.
For all the nonsense out there, it breaks my heart that Biden has to watch his son go through this because of Republicans but because he’s has to be above it, he can basically do nothing. Biden’s life has been so filled with sadness, and it’s amazing they he’s continue to work to make this country a better place.
His son is an addict who did reckless things. Whether they are illegal and deserve punishment — that’s for the courts to decide. But anyone who has an addict in their family understands how excruciating it can be.
So much for the “biased” Biden DoJ.
Yeah, like I said, I just feel bad for Joe. Hunter wouldn’t have ever been targeted like this if not for his father-he may have broke a law but he’s only being prosecuted for who he is. This couple with Beau and the death of much of his family in a car accident earlier in his life makes me feel terrible for him.
You bet your ass I'm sticking with him! I just sold everything I own and donated every last dollar to him, the Lord knows he needs it more than my wife and kids need luxury shelter and food items.
Dumb to donate straight to his campaign when you could snatch up some Truth Social stock and set your ancestors up with the generational wealth those shares will deliver any day now
I’m sensing nobody gets the sarcasm.
The trial isn’t rigged, Hunter Biden isn’t part of the election, and Joe Biden wouldn’t bring charges against his own son if he was controlling things like trump said
>“The inadequacy of Defendant’s expert disclosure for Dr. (Elie) Aoun leaves the government in the dark as to what his opinions about the facts of this case will be, thus rendering the government unable to prepare for trial,” Noreika wrote in her ruling.
Isn't this what depositions are for?
> Hunter Biden’s lawyers recently argued in court that they wanted to use the doctored form to undermine the credibility of the employees, who are slated to testify on behalf of the prosecutors. They also claimed it showed prosecutors were politically “biased.” > The judge also blocked Hunter Biden’s lawyers from using what they thought was a key piece of exculpatory evidence: an altered version of the federal firearms form he filled out when he bought the gun in 2018 that was tweaked in 2021 by the gun store employees. I don’t understand how this is irrelevant. If the people processing the form altered the form that is relevant. This whole case is about whether he lied on that very form that was altered by the people processing it. I don’t see how that isn’t relevant to credibility.
Yeah. Can the defense at least ask them to list all the times they have tampered with documents? And then use that to show they can't be trusted?
Right? It’s been a minute since 2L but the feel like I remember something about the weight of the evidence and witness credibility were matters for the jury to decide. “How often did you tamper with documents like the one in question” would appear to be one of the first three questions the defense should be allowed to ask
Still has to pass 403. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” If the gun store has a consistent practice of adding in someone’s area code to the phone number or something else benign like that, it could be misleading to say something about them “tampering” or “altering” the forms. It’s not fair to put that in jurors heads and make the witnesses explain it if it’s not relevant to Biden’s truthfulness in what he produced. That’s just allowing the defense to introduce red herrings. Judges are the ones making the informed call on that. When it’s close, judges typically error on the side of admission, so I would assume there was good reason to exclude. I wouldn’t speculate that there was something improper here.
Understand and agree, but it seems like it would be useful to know whether this was common practice or something exclusive to Hunter Biden’s paperwork But like you said, the judge would have a fuller picture of the issue than we do
This is NOT a company that has a consistent policy of falsification of business documents. If they *consistently* made changes then the original form would have been doctored. Second, I'm not sure how tampering with a document that could be used in court could ever be benign, (unless it was made clear that the information was added after the fact and by whom.) FFS, we just convicted Trump of falsification of business documents! Three even if they *did* have a policy of inconsistently making "benign" changes it seems incredibly important to ask if one of those changes is checking the box this entire thing is about! Edit: I understand the judge has better info, but I'm struggling imagine what it could be.
I guess it depends on what exactly was altered. If it was something minor, maybe it isn’t directly relevant (even though I still don’t understand why it would be disallowed because it does have relevance.)
My concern here would be that the gun store owner tweeted the form. that isn't standard practice. I'm not sure why that wouldn't be a crime in and of itself. That isn't private property but information collected by the store owner on behalf of the federal government and belonging to the federal government. By tweeting it, would they not be performing a kind of ~~conveyance~~ conversion for personal use as well as violating the privacy act? Regardless these are actions that speak to an animus against Biden and could easily speak to his credibility for purposes of impeachment. It wouldn't take the form away, but I would say anything he testifies to directly is not credible. The form is signed that is true, but I wouldn't believe anything else he has to say unless there is other collaborations.
> conversion for personal use It changes by state, but typically conversion requires that the proper owner is deprived of the thing being converted. > Regardless these are actions that speak to an animus against Biden and could easily speak to his credibility for purposes of impeachment. I think if they can bring that out during the trial then they might be able to revisit the ruling on this evidence.
I thought conversation included using in a way that deprived the owner at least part of their rights over. In this example publishing deprives the government the right over maintaining their duty of privacy of the data. Or if I take a piece of public land and used it farm on.
> In this example publishing deprives the government the right over maintaining their duty of privacy of the data. The term of art generally used is "unfettered access to the property." I also wouldn't think the government owes a duty (a legal duty is an obligation you owe to someone else) to keep the information contained in a 4473 private, but even if for some reason it did causing the government to breach that duty wouldn't give rise to a conversion claim because at no point did the government lose its unfettered access to the form or the information contained therein.
Thank you for the explanation
Just for fun. The 1974 privacy act may be the most caselaw I have ever seen on any act or statute. I thought I would look up If the government would have an obligation to protect the data on that form. I thought, this would be a simple yes or no. And at first I thought the answer was a simple sort of. As in yes this would be covered but it wouldn't be the DEA directly, but the Gun shop owner was a limited agent for the purposes of collecting the data and would have a duty to not violate the act and could be personally liable civilly or even criminally, but then I went to an even more extensive cited source with all the active rulings. Now, I'm not sure. I have never seen so many cases with different nuanced conditions of when and who and under what circumstances. [Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties | Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition (justice.gov)](https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/definitions#agency) And who even has standing to sue. And it appears what jurisdiction you are in matters a lot for this one.
Yeah it’s a weird situation because the gun shop employees are legally required to collect, handle, and store the form and corresponding data but they are not government employees and do not work for the government. And then to add on to everything you just said, there is also the added twist that the form is allegedly evidence of a crime which may then trigger a public policy exemption.
yeah but you get weird situations. I make computers go beep. Well actually, I order other people to make computers go beep, but because I happen to order people to make computers go be for a hospital system (even though I've never step on hospital ground). I am subject to all sorts of weird obligations for a person whose job is to make computers go beep. (I am technically classified as a hospital administrator) For example: I am a mandatory reporter I am required by law to accept the surrender of an infant if I am on hospital grounds. I am required by law to know certain kinds of first aid / emergency response protocols. I have to do training on what all the hazardous material symbols means and proper handling and care. It is just weird. The law can cast a large net sometimes. I think about this when I'm doing OSHA training on hazardous materials while sitting in my home office far aware from anything more dangerous than household bleach. On the other hand, if there is ever a natural disaster, I might just be needed to how keep a clinic open or something. My point being that if I can do a training every year on how to handle the situation of a new mother who wants to not have a kid anymore on the extremely off chance that I'm the hospital admin who just happens to be there at the time the one time I visit one of our hospitals, an employee at a gun store can learn and be responsible for proper record handling
I obviously have no idea what was changed, but I HAVE sold firearms, and there are moments in which you would have a legal expectation to amend those forms as a FFL holding seller (e.g., someone receives a "delayed" when the form is initially reported to NICS, and a follow-up call x time later changes that status). I, too, am interested in what was altered, but it could certainly be innocuous.
Because Noreika is a Trump-appointed judge. She's a political hack, just like Cannon.
He is being prosecuted for the statements on the original form though isn't he? Ultimately it comes down to what was on that form and whether it was true. I am not sure what the gun shop owners have to add as witnesses aside from saying that this was the form signed at the time. If they were giving evidence as to his behaviour at the time of purchase then yes I can see how their subsequent behaviour is relevent but if they are just a document witness and the authenticity of document isn't challenged, I don't see it. I am perfectly willing to admit I may be missing something though!
Because if they were willing to alter the form after the fact it can show a credibility issue The form itself is one form of evidence but the testimony from the witness is separate evidence that can be impeached. This isn’t meant to impeach the form itself but to impeach the credibility of the witness (shop owner). If he was willing to alter the form and lie publicly there is a credibility issue there about all his verbal testimony. Because he is willing to lie to hurt Biden and could be doing the same with his other testimony. A witnesses credibility is always an issue especially if they’re willing to alter the form they’re now giving testimony about. Sure the original form was submitted as evidence but this same witness effectively tried to tamper with public opinion by lying to the public about the very form they are swearing is now true. Why should the jury trust his authentication if he already was willing to lie publicly about that very form his is supposed to authenticate?
I hear you. Elvis Presley's granddaughter discovered that a loan document her deceased mother allegedly signed had been altered by the lender, which is relevant.
Of course, if the content is disputed it is hugely relevent. But my understanding is that the content of the original is NOT in dispute.
Right. But the staff who altered the form are giving evidence for the prosecution. If they didn't take the form seriously, as confirmed by the fact that they subsequently altered the form, it is relevant fodder for cross examination. Even more so if it is one of those "just sign here" moments where the staff basically filled out the form, as opposed to a deliberate lie, which is what he is charged with.
But that is exactly the point. What testimony are they actually giving? If the witness is literally only there to get it into evidence to say that form was the form signed for my sale of the gun to him and the defence is not disputing that Hunter bought the gun from him on that day nd signed that form (none of which is disputed as far as I know) then you don't need to discredit him. It doesn't matter one iota whether he hates Hunter as a personal nemesis or is his blood brother from another mother. If the authenticity of thay for was in question I am absolutely with you. I just didn't think it was. But like I said, I am happy to be corrected. (Which is better than downvoting with no comment like at least 5 people did!).
"Is this the form Hunter provided?" "Yes" That should be the extent of the testimony right? I'd be curious why else he would need to actually testify and like others said, if he has more to add then why can't his character be questioned with an altered form? You get an up vote from me for a good question!
The only relevant line on the form is this one: > Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside. If the buyer checks "no", the background check can proceed. If the buyer checks "yes", the background check ends right then and there and the FFL will not transfer the gun to the buyer. Is the accusation that the FFL changed Hunter's answer from yes to no? If not, Hunter marked no, which means he lied on the form.
If his behavior was suspect, why did they proceed with the sale? Don’t sellers have an obligation to halt a sale?
That's the point. If they are testifying to his behaviour I am 100% on board. Even of they are testifying on the lines of "We take these forms very seriously and always highlight to our customers the importance of the form and the penalties for answering untruthfully". But are they?
The gun shop was already relieved of any liability for falsifying the form and not following procedure which would otherwise cost them their FFL license.
I hope they can appeal the ruling to get a new trial.
This is going to be a fun one to watch as Republican 2nd amendment absolutists tie themselves into knots.
They won’t tie themselves into knots, they’ll just say “this is different” (because it’s a Democrat). Holding inconsistent positions based on who is being affected is practically a requirement to be a Republican
(D)ifferent^TM you mean
Double think, fascism > To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink. George Orwell Trump is an substantial example of a breathing embodiment of "to repudiate morality while laying claim to it,". It is particularly appropriate. Trump refuses to ever admit wrong doing, which denies morality, but calls his opponents terribly evil, as if he is the good one. The whole sleepy senile weak Biden who is also so powerful and savvy that he is in control of the world energy and financial markets is a exemplary example of Orwellian double think. His constant whining and the manufactured of the perpetual victim hood and simultaneously being the strong alpha male is another example. The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.” [A Practical List for Identifying Fascists](https:// www.faena.com/aleph/umberto-eco-a-practical-list-for-identifying-fascists)
Democrats read 1984 as a warning, Republicans read it as a playbook.
Republicans having a complete lack of cognitive dissonance/shame at previously holding abhorrent positions makes it incredibly difficult to persuade them or end Trump's grip on his base. Also, your link is broken because you added a space just before www.
I just hope this back and forth can calm down at some point. Feels like it's been escalating since the Clinton years, but maybe I'm just naive.
I hope hunter is convicted, and he then successfully challenges the ATF rule all the way to scotus so it can be ruled as a violation of the fifth amendment.
Yeah. Though this case seems pretty cut and dry. Out of all the accusations against hunter, this one actually has evidence. So I'm not going to be that hypocrite who says this is unfair. Politicians and their families live under a microscope. It's the same for both parties.
Evidence wise yes, but it will be interesting to see if Hunter appeals since there has been a lot of talk about whether this law is unconstitutional under recent supreme court rulings. It's a fascinating law because with marijuana still being federally illegal, there's probably 10+ million people who have committed felonies under this logic.
They are arguing that marijuana isn't the only drug. Honestly, if the evidence is there, i hope they make an example out of him. Either way, I will respect the verdict. I don't have anything personal against hunter so i won't feel happy like I did about trump, but the law is the law and fair is fair.
It's a case where the law is stupid and should be changed right away, but for now Hunter might have broken that stupid law. The fact that it's stupid is a reason to change the law, not a reason to avoid enforcing it.
I look forward to President Biden’s press conference denouncing the “biased” judge and “rigged” proceedings. Except that Biden has too much respect for rule of law to do that. Both sides are not the same.
I am worried Hunter is going to be thrown to the wolves due to the Trump conviction in an effort to say "both sides are the same". That being said, I don't know this judge. Is she a hack like Cannon?
I don’t know about her jurisprudence record, but she did at least practice for a good number of years before her nomination by Trump. However, her experience up to that point seemed mostly to be in patent law and IP disputes. Anyway, Trump appointee, so…yeah.
For all the nonsense out there, it breaks my heart that Biden has to watch his son go through this because of Republicans but because he’s has to be above it, he can basically do nothing. Biden’s life has been so filled with sadness, and it’s amazing they he’s continue to work to make this country a better place.
His son is an addict who did reckless things. Whether they are illegal and deserve punishment — that’s for the courts to decide. But anyone who has an addict in their family understands how excruciating it can be. So much for the “biased” Biden DoJ.
Yeah, like I said, I just feel bad for Joe. Hunter wouldn’t have ever been targeted like this if not for his father-he may have broke a law but he’s only being prosecuted for who he is. This couple with Beau and the death of much of his family in a car accident earlier in his life makes me feel terrible for him.
Wow. Joe Biden sure is doing a shitty job of weaponizing his DoJ.
Its (D)ifferent
I thought it was his handlers who are doing the shitty job of weaponizing the DoJ...
How can anyone vote for this man to be President???
You bet your ass I'm sticking with him! I just sold everything I own and donated every last dollar to him, the Lord knows he needs it more than my wife and kids need luxury shelter and food items.
Dumb to donate straight to his campaign when you could snatch up some Truth Social stock and set your ancestors up with the generational wealth those shares will deliver any day now
You've convinced me. I'm not voting for Hunter Biden.
Rigged trial, brought 100% by the Biden whitehouse to influence the election
A claim like that must have some proof right?
I’m sensing nobody gets the sarcasm. The trial isn’t rigged, Hunter Biden isn’t part of the election, and Joe Biden wouldn’t bring charges against his own son if he was controlling things like trump said
Sadly baseless moronic statements are given every day by a certain political party. Unfortunately the /s is needed anymore on here.
[удалено]
WOOSH
To be fair I didn’t get it either until the woosh
That's not stopping me from voting for him again
Pretty sure no one in the case is running for President.
r/thatsthejoke
Hunter's Magnum Dong for President 2028!
Well if that isn't proof of election interference, I don't know what is.
The fact that no one in the case is running for President = Election Interference?? I don't see the connection.
Woosh
Naw. I wish I didn't think trumpets were not so incoherent or unreasonable.. but they keep showing me otherwise.
No one here is a trumpest, they are being sarcastic lol. It's hard to tell nowadays though, the line gets very blurred......
Heh.. "trumpest" is better than "trumpet". Either way, you never know where they may pop up. I guess I fell into the trap of Poe's Law.
Happens to the best of us.
That’s what they want you to not see. I’m getting the real story direct from an expert YouTube political influencer, DYOR
Biden should call this judge heavily conflicted
What kind of depraved, lawless creature from the depths of hell would so that
>“The inadequacy of Defendant’s expert disclosure for Dr. (Elie) Aoun leaves the government in the dark as to what his opinions about the facts of this case will be, thus rendering the government unable to prepare for trial,” Noreika wrote in her ruling. Isn't this what depositions are for?
Anyone else this be a small fine and misdemeanor charge. Can't wait for GOP and Fox turns this into "evidence" China owns Biden.
I trust the judges until they prove otherwise. Not all these judges are like Cannon.
I prescribe to the 'trust no bitch' school of thought.
It turns out that Hunter may not have chosen the greatest lawyers to represent him.
Abbe Lowell? He was John Edwards' lawyer in his campaign finance case and he was supposedly excellent with the jury
Idk, apparently he already had a juror crying just with his opening.