Jump to content

The fix is in for Hunter Biden


Recommended Posts

4 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.

Trump didn't get "in trouble" for having classified documents. The consequence was that he was politely asked to return them--exactly as Pence and Biden volunteered to return them when they were discovered.

Trump DID get in trouble for keeping them, showing them around, lying about having them, outright refusing to return them, and trying to hide them.

Surely you can spot the difference?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Trump didn't get "in trouble" for having classified documents. The consequence was that he was politely asked to return them--exactly as Pence and Biden volunteered to return them when they were discovered.

Trump DID get in trouble for keeping them, showing them around, lying about having them, outright refusing to return them, and trying to hide them.

Surely you can spot the difference?

Many on the right here cannot see through their cognitive dissonance. 💡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Many on the right here cannot see through their cognitive dissonance. 💡

ROFLMAO -  man you're bringing out ALL the classics today :)   Still haven't figured out what cognitive dissonance means :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

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,

Not all instances of "falsifying business records" are the same, right, dummy?

Theoretically paying for an NDA and claiming it as a business expense isn't illegal. 

DO you have cites to show that it is?

Quote

but you know he's a pathological liar, right? It happens all the time. 

I know that you're a pathological, and that Trump tells the truth far more often than you do.

Quote

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. 

Get it through your head, what he was charged with was some misdemeanours. Not felonies.

In order to even hold a trial regarding those misdemeanours, they needed to be tied to a different crime to bump them up to felony status, but even then, the statute of limitations for his alleged NY state crimes had passed, so they used federal laws (in their state court) to make the connection.

Quote

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.

The statute for misdemeanours is 2 years, that passed before covid started, and he wasn't accused of tying his business record expense to any NY state felonies. 

It's all speculation that Trump got the NDA to affect the federal election. No one knows if he's guilty of that because he has never even been indicted, much less convicted. 

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Not all instances of "falsifying business records" are the same, right, dummy?

Theoretically paying for an NDA and claiming it as a business expense isn't illegal. 

DO you have cites to show that it is?

I know that you're a pathological, and that Trump tells the truth far more often than you do.

Get it through your head, what he was charged with was some misdemeanours. Not felonies.

In order to even hold a trial regarding those misdemeanours, they needed to be tied to a different crime to bump them up to felony status, but even then, the statute of limitations for his alleged NY state crimes had passed, so they used federal laws (in their state court) to make the connection.

The statute for misdemeanours is 2 years, that passed before covid started, and he wasn't accused of tying his business record expense to any NY state felonies. 

It's all speculation that Trump got the NDA to affect the federal election. No one knows if he's guilty of that because he has never even been indicted, much less convicted. 

No, you drooling halfwit, not all falsified business records are falsified for the same reasons, but they are all the same crime. 

No, you inbred troglodyte, Trump was indeed charged with felonies. It's right there in the paperwork for the indictment, arraignment and conviction. Have someone read it to you.

And no, you knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, Trump was indeed accused of violating New York Election Law Section 17-152, a felony he certainly intended co commit. No federal law required.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, you drooling halfwit, not all falsified business records are falsified for the same reasons, but they are all the same crime. 

No, you inbred troglodyte, Trump was indeed charged with felonies. It's right there in the paperwork for the indictment, arraignment and conviction. Have someone read it to you.

And no, you knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, Trump was indeed accused of violating New York Election Law Section 17-152, a felony he certainly intended co commit. No federal law required.

The judge said you're a liar

Merchan told jurors that the prosecutors only need to prove that Trump had the intent to commit or conceal another crime, rather than prove the other crime was committed or aided.

Prosecutors allege that Trump falsified the records to hide a violation of New York Election Law Section 17-152 – a rarely used law that prohibits groups from using unlawful means to influence an election.

"Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct," he said.

Prosecutors offered three theories about the unlawful means -- a tax crime, falsification of bank records or campaign finance violations. According to Merchan, the jury does not need to agree which of the three unlawful means was employed to convict the former president.

"Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were," Merchan told jurors.

The new york state law was ONLY a valid crime IF one of the other crimes were true - crimes he never was accused of or tried for. 

 

Swing and a miss jr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, you drooling halfwit, not all falsified business records are falsified for the same reasons, but they are all the same crime. 

No, you inbred troglodyte, Trump was indeed charged with felonies. It's right there in the paperwork for the indictment, arraignment and conviction. Have someone read it to you.

And no, you knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, Trump was indeed accused of violating New York Election Law Section 17-152, a felony he certainly intended co commit. No federal law required.

IF WCM read the law regarding falsifying business records, he surely did NOT understand what it says. LMAO

That's a hell of thing to demonstrate for a guy pretends to be an expert  here on most everything.

Edited by robosmith
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

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:

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. 

No it makes illegal gun ownership harder. You would give them to everyone and try to clean up the mess later. 

What kind of upside down universe do you live in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

No it makes illegal gun ownership harder.

  • The reforms include:

    1. Tougher background checks for buyers younger than 21
    • Are people under 21 criminals? I think not.
    1. $15bn (£12.2bn) in federal funding for mental health programs and school security upgrades
    • How does this make illegal gun ownership harder?

And if you recall, I did say that Dems don't want to take guns away from criminals, and they clearly don't. 

One of the most effective ways to get guns off the streets is by "carding" people, or using a 'stop and frisk' program, etc.

Different cities have different names for those programs, and wherever police implement that practice it saves lives, but leftists cry "stop and frisk targets a disproportionate amount of black men!" and they end those programs. 

It's true that a disproportionate amount of black men lose guns to that program, but it actually saves a disproportionate amount of black men too.

It's a choice between them losing their guns or their lives, and leftists choose "lives. Let them lose their lives" every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:
  • The reforms include:

    1. Tougher background checks for buyers younger than 21
    • Are people under 21 criminals? I think not.
    1. $15bn (£12.2bn) in federal funding for mental health programs and school security upgrades
    • How does this make illegal gun ownership harder?

And if you recall, I did say that Dems don't want to take guns away from criminals, and they clearly don't. 

One of the most effective ways to get guns off the streets is by "carding" people, or using a 'stop and frisk' program, etc.

Different cities have different names for those programs, and wherever police implement that practice it saves lives, but leftists cry "stop and frisk targets a disproportionate amount of black men!" and they end those programs. 

It's true that a disproportionate amount of black men lose guns to that program, but it actually saves a disproportionate amount of black men too.

It's a choice between them losing their guns or their lives, and leftists choose "lives. Let them lose their lives" every time.

it requires background checks dumbass. How do you prevent criminals from getting guns if you don't do background checks FFS.

 

WCM. Give everyone guns and we will figure it out after they kill someone. 

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Hodad said:

Trump didn't get "in trouble" for having classified documents. The consequence was that he was politely asked to return them--exactly as Pence and Biden volunteered to return them when they were discovered.

Trump DID get in trouble for keeping them, showing them around, lying about having them, outright refusing to return them, and trying to hide them.

Surely you can spot the difference?

Unfortunately you are being fed a line of complete bunk.  Trump did none of that, or almost none of it.  

I notice that you didn’t care enough to comment on Biden’s crimes that were ignored by the “justice” system.  And of course no comment on Hunter’s crimes.   Well to each his own I guess.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

it requires background checks dumbass. How do you prevent criminals from getting guns if you don't do background checks FFS.

No, it requires 'tougher' background checks for people under 21, dumbass. 

And again, none of this matters when the Dems do everything they can to ensure that the police can't take guns away from criminals, when Dem DAs decide to downgrade felony charges to misdemeanours and don't prosecute for actual misdemeanours, when Dem DAs ask for light sentences, when Dems set up cashless bail so that people can get out on the street right away, etc, etc.

It's not just me saying it. Even Democrat mayors are commenting on the number of violent crimes that are committed by people with multiple violent convictions. When you teach a criminal that they won't be punished for their crimes, guess what happens, dumbass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Unfortunately you are being fed a line of complete bunk.  Trump did none of that, or almost none of it.  

I notice that you didn’t care enough to comment on Biden’s crimes that were ignored by the “justice” system.  And of course no comment on Hunter’s crimes.   Well to each his own I guess.  

You make that statement based on what? Trump's word? A grand jury indictment and a LOT of publicly available evidence indicate that Trump did all of that and more. It's worth reading the indictment.

Did Trump take them?

Did Trump keep them?

Did Trump refuse to return them?

Did Trump try to hide them?

Did he show them around to people? 

 

Resounding yes to all of that. He'll have his day in court to convince a jury that he shouldn't be held accountable, but it's pretty clear he did those things. 

This is a crime that is prosecuted for intent. I have commented many times on this forum. Mishandling of classified documents happens all the time in the federal government. Nobody gets prosecuted for accidental mishandling. Pence and Biden both had documents they shouldn't have. They voluntarily contacted authorities and turned them in when discovered. So neither of them will face any consequence. As above, Trump wouldn't have had any problem had he turned over the documents, but his extensive and willful actions to retain and keep the documents demonstrated intent. Hence, he has a legal problem. 

And Hunter Biden is a private citizen who is, frankly, being held to a higher standard and scrutiny because of his relationship to the President. He's standing trial right now for things that are almost never prosecuted independently. What comment do you want me to have on it? The dude's literally on trial.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sharkman said:

Unfortunately you are being fed a line of complete bunk.  Trump did none of that, or almost none of it.  

So everyone but you is LYING about what happened including the indictments filed UNDER OATH. LMAO

You're not even certain about what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

No, it requires 'tougher' background checks for people under 21, dumbass. 

And again, none of this matters when the Dems do everything they can to ensure that the police can't take guns away from criminals, when Dem DAs decide to downgrade felony charges to misdemeanours and don't prosecute for actual misdemeanours, when Dem DAs ask for light sentences, when Dems set up cashless bail so that people can get out on the street right away, etc, etc.

It's not just me saying it. Even Democrat mayors are commenting on the number of violent crimes that are committed by people with multiple violent convictions. When you teach a criminal that they won't be punished for their crimes, guess what happens, dumbass?

You don’t want any checks or restraints on gun ownership, you are fine with the body count. Almost all the school shootings are carried out by students or under 21’s but you are just fine with arming them, no questions asked until after they mow down a bunch of kids.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You don’t want any checks or restraints on gun ownership, you are fine with the body count. Almost all the school shootings are carried out by students but you are just fine with arming them, no questions asked until after they mow down a bunch of Midas.

Buddy, I proved to you just how uninterested the DNC is in keeping guns away from criminals, and how keen they are on keeping violent criminals out on the streets. They even went so far as to bail out rioters and promote web-hosts that people could donate to, to get rioters back on the streets ffs. They laughed it off when BLM overran part of Seattle and declared sovereignty there. They even publicly condoned protests at SCJ's homes, and they laughed off comments about killing Trump, and the severed head effigy.

The DNC is vile. They're a den of snakes. Your cultist dedication to them is revolting.

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Buddy, I proved to you just how uninterested the DNC is in keeping guns away from criminals, and how keen they are on keeping violent criminals out on the streets. They even went so far as to bail out rioters and promote web-hosts that people could donate to, to get rioters back on the streets ffs. They laughed it off when BLM overran part of Seattle and declared sovereignty there. They even publicly condoned protests at SCJ's homes, and they laughed off comments about killing Trump, and the severed head effigy.

The DNC is vile. They're a den of snakes. Your cultist dedication to them is revolting.

The only thing you “proved” is that you are clueless. Biden delivered the first major change in gun legislation since the Republicans got rid of the assault weapons ban. Must be tough living in your upside down white is black world. No wonder you can’t keep anything straight.

Edited by Aristides
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The only thing you “proved” is that you are clueless.

Grow up, whiner. 

The DNC's positions on legal gun ownership and incarcerating rioters and violent criminals is well-known. They say those things right on TV. Sorry, they lie about those things on TV. I'm just the messenger.

Quote

Biden delivered the first major change in gun legislation since the Republicans got rid of the assault weapons ban. Must be tough living in your upside down white is black world. No wonder you can’t keep anything straight.

🤣 In case you missed it, this all started when I pointed out the fact that the dems weren't being hypocrites by trying to get Hunter off on the weapons crimes that he is clearly guilty of, because the Dems are consistently against getting guns away from criminals and against locking people up - even violent offenders. They just are. Read this: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-rising-crime-recall-movement-progressive-district-attorneys/

  • Fed-up communities dealing with violent crime across the state are pointing the finger at progressive district attorneys. There's been a movement across California to try to unseat reform-minded district attorneys for their so-called soft-on-crime approach.

    For the first time in Alameda County history, residents are pushing to recall a district attorney less than a year into Pamela Price's term.

    It comes after the high-profile recall of former district attorney Chesa Boudin last year in San Francisco. He was one of the most progressive prosecutors in the country.

    Boudin's predecessor, and now Los Angeles County DA George Gascon is also a criminal justice reformer - in charge of the largest office in the country. He dodged two recall attempts in two years. The recall committee has filed a lawsuit against the county challenging its certification process.

Biden's gun laws MAKE IT HARDER FOR NON-CRIMINALS TO GET GUNS, PERIOD. Unless you can prove that people under 21 are criminals, I'm correct.

There's also the dangerous standard of Biden's "red-flag laws, that remove guns from people who are considered a threat".  Biden has labelled everyone who voted for Trump "a threat". Anyone who protested at Capitol Hill is considered "a threat". This plays right into Biden's authoritarian nature. 

Joe22Adolf22Biden.thumb.png.b61c6c25acfadd118d4e9fc2daa36b3c.png

^That guy^ is a 'danger'. His rhetoric is intensely divisive, slanderous, and hateful on a massive scale.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Biden's gun laws MAKE IT HARDER FOR NON-CRIMINALS TO GET GUNS, PERIOD. Unless you can prove that people under 21 are criminals, I'm correct.

That's why you do background checks, dumbass.

 

You would just give any maniac or crook a gun then mouth ingenuous thoughts and payers to the victims while hoping people will forget about the last massacre before anything meaningful gets done do prevent another.

Last I heard, Hunter was being tried for firearms violations.

Edited by Aristides
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That's why you do background checks, dumbass.

There already were background checks, dumbass. 

It says "tougher" background checks, which means that there already were background checks in place. 

I don't know if you have a genuine failure to understand this, or if you're too much of a cultist to tell the truth, but you clearly don't know wtf you're talking about.

Quote

You would just give any maniac or crook a gun 

You either voted for Trudeau or Biden in the last election, dumbass. That's as bad as giving guns to islamic state (ironically it was Obama that did that).

Quote

Last I heard, Hunter was being tried for firearms violations.

Right. And like I said: it's not hypocritical for the Dems to try to keep people like that out of jail. They're actually applying the law to Hunter just like they do with violent criminals all across America.

Quote

 then mouth ingenuous thoughts and payers to the victims while hoping people will forget about the last massacre before anything meaningful gets done do prevent it.

.How did Darnell Brooks get out of jail after beating up his baby momma and then running her over? It was the dems' soft on crime, low bail laws. What did he do with that car 2 months later? He was involved in a 50+ person "car crash" according to CNN. 

There are countless examples of violent criminals with long rap sheets staying on the streets to attack and kill again. The number of people killed by violent offenders, who should have remained in jail, far eclipses the number of people killed by maniacs who rampaged at schools.  

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

There already were background checks, dumbass. 

It says "tougher" background checks, which means that there already were background checks in place. 

I don't know if you have a genuine failure to understand this, or if you're too much of a cultist to tell the truth, but you clearly don't know wtf you're talking about.

You either voted for Trudeau or Biden in the last election, dumbass. That's as bad as giving guns to islamic state (ironically it was Obama that did that).

Right. And like I said: it's not hypocritical for the Dems to try to keep people like that out of jail. They're actually applying the law to Hunter just like they do with violent criminals all across America.

.How did Darnell Brooks get out of jail after beating up his baby momma and then running her over? It was the dems' soft on crime, low bail laws. What did he do with that car 2 months later? He was involved in a 50+ person "car crash" according to CNN. 

There are countless examples of violent criminals with long rap sheets staying on the streets to attack and kill again. The number of people killed by violent offenders, who should have remained in jail, far eclipses the number of people killed by maniacs who rampaged at schools.  

Deflect, deflect. You brought up Democrats being weak on guns and as soon as you are shown to be FoS,  you want to talk about anything but.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2024 at 1:41 PM, WestCanMan said:

Not all instances of "falsifying business records" are the same, right, dummy?

Theoretically paying for an NDA and claiming it as a business expense isn't illegal. 

DO you have cites to show that it is?

I know that you're a pathological, and that Trump tells the truth far more often than you do.

Get it through your head, what he was charged with was some misdemeanours. Not felonies.

In order to even hold a trial regarding those misdemeanours, they needed to be tied to a different crime to bump them up to felony status, but even then, the statute of limitations for his alleged NY state crimes had passed, so they used federal laws (in their state court) to make the connection.

The statute for misdemeanours is 2 years, that passed before covid started, and he wasn't accused of tying his business record expense to any NY state felonies. 

It's all speculation that Trump got the NDA to affect the federal election. No one knows if he's guilty of that because he has never even been indicted, much less convicted. 

Yes, the statue of limitations for misdemeanors in New York State is two years.

However, Donald Trump was not charged with committing a misdemeanor, he was charged with 34 Class E felony charges, such as Section 175.10 , “Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.”  You can click on the link and see that State Law lists 175.10 as a Felony, not as a Misdemeanor. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Aristides said:

Deflect, deflect. You brought up Democrats being weak on guns and as soon as you are shown to be FoS,  you want to talk about anything but.

The Dems ARE weak on guns - at least as far as keeping them away from criminals goes.

They have been putting barricades in the way of police officers for decades, to keep guns in the possession of criminals. They go to great lengths to keep violent criminals out of jail, or bail them out if they're just rioters, and to keep illegal immigrants with long rap sheets in the country. 

And we already know that Dem AGs, DAs and prosecutors don't prosecute for laws that are on the books anyways, so what's the point of creating new ones for them to ignore.

Their new laws do more to keep guns out of the hands of non-criminals than criminals. 

You're just full of sh1t, as usual, Aristedes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rebound said:

Yes, the statue of limitations for misdemeanors in New York State is two years.

However, Donald Trump was not charged with committing a misdemeanor, he was charged with 34 Class E felony charges, such as Section 175.10 , “Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.”  You can click on the link and see that State Law lists 175.10 as a Felony, not as a Misdemeanor. 

🤣

  • 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.
     

The AND there means that it was not a felony UNLESS it was tied to another crime. The 'other crime' was federal.

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...