Jump to content

The fix is in for Hunter Biden


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Again, you made the claim that there is precedent for jailing someone in a comparable case. But you have not provided one single comparable case in all of US history. 

Where's the "one single case in all of US history" where someone was criminally charged for what Trump did, dummy? 

Who ever ran a trial against someone for misdemeanours that had passed their statute of limitations 3 times over, and applied them along with federal charges in a state court?

And I'm not even limiting you the specific misdemeanours that Trump allegedly committed, you can choose any misdemeanour/federal crime combo you want to, from any state court in the whole US of A, dummy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.reuters.com/legal/what-are-criminal-charges-likely-defense-hunter-bidens-gun-trial-2024-06-03/

Quote
He is accused of making a false statement material to a firearms sale and making a false statement in a firearms transaction record.
Prosecutors contend he committed a crime when he ticked a box indicating "no" next to a question asking if he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance or addicted to a controlled substance.

That's a slam dunk.

Hunter's crack-smoking videos are proof that he was smoking crack, and even if that's inadmissible as evidence, there's the fact that he admits that he was a drug addict - it's a matter of public record.

If the laws on the books are applied fairly and accurately, Hunter is the dictionary definition of guilty.

Quote
For the first two charges [the other one is a tax-law charge, fairly basic, so not really worth discussing here imo], [1.] the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunter Biden knowingly made a false statement. For one of the first two charges [2.] the government must also show the false statement was material to the sale of the gun.
 

1. He knew he was a crackhead, and as the smartest man that Joe knows, he also knew that crack was an illegal substance, and so he knew that saying he wasn't using illegal substances was a lie. Slam dunk.

2. As a lawyer, and the smartest guy that the POTUS knows, he knew better than anyone else in the USA that he had to lie. 

Quote

For the possession charge, the government must prove the following elements: that Biden was either an unlawful user of a controlled substance or was a drug addict; that he knowingly possessed a firearm; and that when he knowingly possessed the firearm he also knew he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance or a drug addict.

As a lawyer, and the smartest person the current POTUS knows, Hunter is basically considered omniscient in these simple matters.

If ignorance can be used as an excuse for Hunter Biden, then no one in America can ever be charged with a crime that requires knowledge of anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Where's the "one single case in all of US history" where someone was criminally charged for what Trump did, dummy? 

Who ever ran a trial against someone for misdemeanours that had passed their statute of limitations 3 times over, and applied them along with federal charges in a state court?

And I'm not even limiting you the specific misdemeanours that Trump allegedly committed, you can choose any misdemeanour/federal crime combo you want to, from any state court in the whole US of A, dummy. 

Then Trump should win his appeal. Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, West said:

-Texts that he's smoking crack on a car the day after purchasing a firearm

-another text shows that he was waiting for a drug dealer.

Still I predict he gets off. America is a messed up place

I'll forgive that loser once his piece of sh*t father is removed from the WH. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The Dems are huge advocates for gun control laws, but to be fair to the Dems, they've never been interested in preventing criminals from getting guns and they've never been interested in charging criminals for breaking firearm laws of any sort. The Dems only interest in this area is to prevent non-criminals from getting access to guns.

If a Demi DA, Demi prosecutor, and a Demi judge all decided to let Hunter off the hook for these gun 'crimes', it would actually be 100% consistent with everything that they've done up to this point. 

WCM living in his own little world again.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61938109

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Where's the "one single case in all of US history" where someone was criminally charged for what Trump did, dummy? 

Who ever ran a trial against someone for misdemeanours that had passed their statute of limitations 3 times over, and applied them along with federal charges in a state court?

And I'm not even limiting you the specific misdemeanours that Trump allegedly committed, you can choose any misdemeanour/federal crime combo you want to, from any state court in the whole US of A, dummy. 

Do you even pause to think before you post this inane nonsense? 

A. Trump (and those acting at his behest) falsified business records. That's "what he did." And the same DA's office has prosecuted 437 other cases not just criminally, but with a felony charge for falsifying documents in the last 10 years. Just that one office. Trump may have told you that this doesn't happen, but you know he's a pathological liar, right? It happens all the time. 

B. Get it through your head, this prosecution and conviction did NOT rely on federal law, and no federal charges were applied. FFS, go read the damn jury instructions. The case works just fine with NY law. 

C. The charges WERE NOT past the COVID-extended statue of limitations. You seem absolutely committed to lying about this point, so I suppose this is mentioned for honest people playing along at home.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an interesting defense for Hunter, he lied on the application form because he was under the influence of illegal drugs and didn't know what he was doing. So if a person gets pulled over while driving drunk, then fails the breathalyzer, it's now a legitimate defense to say "I didn't know what I was doing because I was drunk at the time"?😒

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

Trump just got convicted on 34 counts on what was a misdemeanor that got turned into a felony. Passed the statute of limitations too.

It "was a misdemeanor" unless ENHANCED to a felony by aggravating circumstance. And the statute is LONGER for felonies. I can tell you haven't even read the law, yet. LMAO

3 hours ago, ironstone said:

A sharp contrast to Hunter, who the DOJ tried to give that sweetheart deal to, on what was an actual felony lol.

The decisions of a special prosecutor appointed by Trump, are not "the DOJ."

The FACT is, that law is almost never charged unless part of a much greater crime (of violence, etc) as a sentencing enhancement.

The FACT is, Hunter didn't get a "sweetheart deal" due to hypocritical pressure by House RepubliCONS.

The same RepubliCONS who are challenging the Constitutionality of that law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ironstone said:

It's an interesting defense for Hunter, he lied on the application form because he was under the influence of illegal drugs and didn't know what he was doing. So if a person gets pulled over while driving drunk, then fails the breathalyzer, it's now a legitimate defense to say "I didn't know what I was doing because I was drunk at the time"?😒

Is that what they're telling you on FOS LIES? LMAO That's NOT Hunter defense. 

Hunter is saying he wasn't using drugs at the time because under his rehab program he had switched to alcohol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ironstone said:

It's an interesting defense for Hunter, he lied on the application form because he was under the influence of illegal drugs and didn't know what he was doing. So if a person gets pulled over while driving drunk, then fails the breathalyzer, it's now a legitimate defense to say "I didn't know what I was doing because I was drunk at the time"?😒

is legal defense has been tried in the past and has always been shot down. We'll see if it magically sticks this time.

I suspect that they won't want to set the precedent that this is a legitimate defense so what they'll do is still convict him but then use this as an excuse for an ultra light sentence like two weeks house arrest or something

Just now, robosmith said:

Is that what they're telling you on FOS LIES? LMAO That's NOT Hunter defense. Hunter is saying he wasn't using drugs at the time because under his rehab program he had switched to alcohol.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!  AAAAHHHHHH  I SEE - his REAL defense isn't that he was taking drugs, it's that he was too DRUNK to take drugs and that's why he did it :)   LOLOLOLOL   Well that's MUCH better :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sharkman said:

He will probably get an air slap on the wrist.  This will be an excellent illustration for anyone who is starting to wake up in the US.  You know, something’s wrong with the border/the Biden Administration/the Justice System/the economy, but they just can’t quite put their finger on what it is.

Then they see Trump convicted for his lawyer taking out a loan to pay off an accuser, while Hunter gets off for gun crimes.  And they think to themselves, didn’t Joe have classified documents unsecured in his garage when as a VP he had no right to hold such documents?  But Trump gets into all kinds of legal trouble for having them, but he was president?

I’m telling you, this Biden administration is going to come apart at the seams, and there won’t be enough undocumented immigrants in the world that could re-elect him.

You need to review your story before embarrassing yourself by posting ^these LIES here.

Trump was convicted for falsification of business records enhanced to a felony by the intent being to influence the election. Read the law.

Trump wasn't President when he REFUSED to RETURN the documents, and LIED about having them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, robosmith said:

It "was a misdemeanor" unless ENHANCED to a felony by aggravating circumstance. And the statute is LONGER for felonies. I can tell you haven't even read the law, yet. LMAO

That's very creative I must admit. So in the wonderful world of Democrat justice, any expired misdemeanor can at any time be resurrected into a felony...and now that it's a felony...the statute of limitations is now LONGER?

😵

Edited by ironstone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ironstone said:

That's very creative I must admit. So in the wonderful world of Democrat justice, any expired misdemeanor can at any time be resurrected into a felony...and now that it's a felony...the statute of limitations is now LONGER.

😵

Creative,  frankencase, 'russian nesting doll' case, phantom charge case,  all these terms to describe something that has never happened before where you have to cobble together all these parts including federal charges that the state CAN'T prosecute and pretend he's guilty of those. 

It's like peter pan - Tinkerbell is sick! If we all wish together than trump is guilty of unspecified federal charges then she can get better! Come on everyone - Believe!!!!

this is a joke. And the timing is a joke, with a Biden lawyer joining the prosecution team just before the charges are put out. A case tried by a judge who got elected promising he would convict trump of something as if that's impartial along with the prosecutor that promised that he had the skills to convict trump and that's why he should be elected. At least the prosecutor has the excuse of not having to be impartial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ironstone said:

That's very creative I must admit. So in the wonderful world of Democrat justice, any expired misdemeanor can at any time be resurrected into a felony...and now that it's a felony...the statute of limitations is now LONGER?

😵

Read the f'ing NY state LAW. Why do you restate what I wrote AND GET it WRONG?

You just DESTROY YOUR CREDIBILITY. LMAO

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

He got it right, you got  it wrong. The good news is you didn't destroy your credibility tho.  You didnt' have any to begin with so you're safe. 

I can tell you've not read the law, either. Maybe you don't know how to read "legal." LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the recent show trial in NY seems to have actually given Trump a substantial boost in donations and it hasn't hurt his polling number at this time.

Since it's much more than likely that Hunter is going to get the lightest possible punishment or perhaps zero consequences at all from the friendly jury members, this too may even help Trump's popularity even more. It helps prove his narrative that the system is rigged against him while Hunter gets off.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I can tell you've not read the law, either. Maybe you don't know how to read "legal." LMAO

Nobody here is trying to troll you. It's just that you clearly get really worked up when anyone dares to question you or states facts you don't like. That is just about with every single response you put up on here.

I don't get that same over-the-top frothing at the mouth vibe with any other person on here, only you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Then Trump should win his appeal. Right.

In NY State, no, but I'm not the one who said that "because no one has ever been charged of that before, no one ever can be". That was the dipsnit I quoted.

Trump will eventually have this overturned at the SC, probably 9-0. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Nobody here is trying to troll you. It's just that you clearly get really worked up when anyone dares to question you or states facts you don't like. That is just about with every single response you put up on here.

I don't get that same over-the-top frothing at the mouth vibe with any other person on here, only you.

It's ^these kind of LIES which "get me worked up."

"facts I don't like," are NOT FACTS just because you heard them on FOS LIES. 

Seems you've not understood that FOS is LYING to you, even though they paid $800M for LYING. LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ironstone said:

So the recent show trial in NY seems to have actually given Trump a substantial boost in donations and it hasn't hurt his polling number at this time.

Since it's much more than likely that Hunter is going to get the lightest possible punishment or perhaps zero consequences at all from the friendly jury members, this too may even help Trump's popularity even more. It helps prove his narrative that the system is rigged against him while Hunter gets off.

^FALSE EQUIVALENCE. Hunter getting an illegal gun for 11 days, pales in comparison to Trump's illegal election interference.

Though I'm betting you don't know how what Trump did helped him "win" the razor thin margin of his "victory" in the election in 2016. LMAO 

Here's a clue: every illegal advantage Trump stole was CRUCIAL to his "victory."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

WCM living in his own little world again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61938109

Aristedes is such a hapless leftard that he didn't even read his own article:

  • The reforms include:

    1. Tougher background checks for buyers younger than 21
    2. $15bn (£12.2bn) in federal funding for mental health programs and school security upgrades
    3. Funding to encourage states to implement "red flag" laws to remove firearms from people considered a threat
    4. Closing the so-called "boyfriend loophole" by banning all those convicted of domestic abuse from owning a gun - not just those who are married to their victims or live with them.

 

1. Makes legal gun ownership harder - doesn't say anything about prosecuting criminals. 

2. Makes legal gun ownership harder - doesn't say anything about prosecuting criminals. 

3. Makes legal gun ownership harder - doesn't say anything about prosecuting criminals. 

4. Makes legal gun ownership harder - doesn't say anything about prosecuting criminals. In fairness, it does make it harder for criminals to get access to guns through legal channels, but the problem with criminals and firearms is that - and you can quote me directly on this - LIBS/DEMONRATS CONSTANTLY MAKE IT HARDER FOR POLICE TO GET GUNS AWAY FROM CRIMINALS BOTH IN THE US AND CANADA. 

 

FWIW, here's my quote that he was responding to with that drivel:

Quote

The Dems are huge advocates for gun control laws, but to be fair to the Dems,

1. they've never been interested in preventing criminals from getting guns and

2. they've never been interested in charging criminals for breaking firearm laws of any sort.

3. The Dems only interest in this area is to prevent non-criminals from getting access to guns.

B-Duhh's law only made s light to to the law regarding part 1, but there have always been laws on the books preventing criminals from getting guns, the Dems just ensure that no one uses them at the DA/prosecutorial level, and they campaign on TV that those laws are racist, so that police can't even search known criminals for guns. 

Edited by WestCanMan
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I can tell you've not read the law, either. Maybe you don't know how to read "legal." LMAO

Right - just like how i was wrong in your opinion about the judges taking trump off the ballot in colorado and the other states right? :)  Didn't you claim i didn't understand the law then too?  Except - it was ruled that they (and therefore you) were wrong  and more over that their actions were an attack on democracy. 

LOL - looks like i read it better than you :)  

And to be honest even if someone didn't read it just saying you're wrong has about an 89 percent chance of being correct anyway so they'd still be playing the odds with that statement :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,771
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Matthew earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CouchPotato earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      First Post
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...