The Hunter Biden gun case wraps up today and will go to the jury probably tomorrow. For the record, I assume they'll find him guilty because, you know, he is guilty. He's basically admitted it. Abbe Lowell is a good lawyer, but there's only so much even a good lawyer can do.
However, I also assume that the judge in the case will hand down a very minimal sentence. After all, that's what would happen to any ordinary defendant in a case like this—first-time offender, trivial offense, no threat to the public, has since cleaned up his act, etc.
We'll see. I don't expect the jury to take a long time returning a verdict.
Any way he avoids being executed will be a reason to storm the capitol.
But Fox News got to say "Biden Crime Family" about every 2 minutes, so winning!
Hunter's Minor Gun Charge
Versus Trump's 34 Felonies
Why They're Really The Same
A Times Panel Discussion
If Biden's brazen enough to use the courts to go after his political opponent, surely he'll intervene on his son's behalf here, right?
They'll probably spin it like Biden is so brazen in going after his political opponents that he is using his own son to distract you from it. If even his son can be sacrificed to Biden's evil then no one is safe and he'll be coming for you next.
Then give Trump $50 bucks to stop this madman and an add for one neat trick that's sure to hide you from the feds. And buy some gold and testosterone supplements while you're at it.
I await the republican outrage at this unconstitutional abridgement of hunter's inviolable 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
Don't hold your breath.
The NRA didn't have any problem lawyering up to defend Zimmerman when he up and killed a teenager on the sidewalk who was carrying a sack of gummy bears and an iced tea.
I was shocked to see Trey Gowdy say when he was a federal prosecutor they never charged this kind of crime and the Lindsay Graham also made a remark about this not being charged if he had a different name.
I expect Hunter to be acquitted. He had just gotten out of rehab when he filled out the relevant paperwork, and it's not at all implausible that he believed he was rehabilitated and was no longer an illegal drug user. Relapses are regrettably common, and Hunter relapsed AFTER he purchased the gun.
I didn't see any of this and haven't seen anything posted - but that's exactly what I thought.
Hunter: I had just finished rehab so I believed then and now that I gave an honest answer. On that day, at that time, I was not doing drugs and was not addicted.
How would the prosecution challenge that statement?
He'd failed multiple rehabs and you the present interpretation of the law is you need to be clean for 6 month to legally answer that question no. Not sure what the jury instructions for the meaning of not using was.
My understanding is what Hunter believed at the time, not the fact that addicts often relapse. If we were to take that claim “once an addict always an addict” than anyone who has been addicted to drugs would never be allowed to buy a gun, something the NRA and it’s Republican toadies would not support given all the opioid addicts in red areas.
I am not as sure of a conviction as Kevin...maybe one count, hung on two others, or simply hung. I have reasonable doubt, but then I've worked with addicts...they always wake up hopeful that..."Today is the day I get clean..." (even as they subsequently die).
I don't know...facts may seem easy to Kevin, but what Hunter was thinking is crucial. Traveller
If the jury is given the option of convicting on a lesser charge, I could see them returning that verdict.
There is no such possibility in this case.
You either lied or you didn't, you either were illegally in possession or you weren't.
Juries don't behave logically and are allowed to trade verdicts, i.e. 4 jurors think he is guilty of all three charges and 8 jurors think he is not guilty and so they take the average and convict on one.
I wouldn't be so sanguine about the minimal sentence if he is convicted (which seems maybe a little more than 50-50 on one count and less on the others, from what I've read).
But on the sentence, according to Marcy Wheeler the judge here has been involved in this case quite a bit longer than the public has known about and she's made some defensible-but-pretty-iffy evidentiary decisions that consistently favored prosecutors. So maybe no or minimal jail time for the reasons you point to-- anything else would be really hard to justify-- but a longer than normal period of supervision, something like that, I think would be in the cards. Happy to be wrong, as they say.
The decision to prosecute here, especially after getting within one technicality from a sealed plea deal, is the skunk in the garden. It looks and smells like a Robert Hur special. Noreika must know how unusual it is and I think she's ended up objectively facilitating it, mostly subtly and staying inside the lines. If he's convicted, we'll see what happens over the long years of appeal.
The actual form Hunter filled out can be found here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/06/03/hunter-biden-trial-crack-cocaine-handgun-in-bin/
Looking at the question, it seems reasonable that someone who used drugs in the past but isn't literally using them today and has no plans to use them in the future (even if they do actually fall off the wagon in the future and start using again) could answer the question No. I mean the actual question is:
ARE you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Caffeine is a stimulant and it's entirely possible to be addicted to it. So are many other legal drugs. Nobody harasses those people when they buy guns for filling out this form wrong.
But more seriously, "are" implies that these conditions must be happening today or at least in the very recent past and/or near future. It's like asking me "are you a National Merit Scholar?" I was like 30 years ago. Am I still one? The honor was never rescinded... but absolutely nobody would describe a middle aged person as a National Merit Scholar even if they have the certificate framed on the wall.
Presumably there is some time period in which an adult could've used marijuana or one of the other drugs listed that are considered Real Drugs and aren't common substances like caffeine... and then quit using them... and then applied to buy a gun, without knowing if they would get hooked again someday. Like if each of those "... and then" phrases was replaced with "... and then 10 years later," I doubt anybody would say "once a drug user, always a drug user, lock 'em up!"
In summation, Hunter Biden is being railroaded by the judicial system right now. Nobody else but him would ever be charged with this "crime" and I hope the jury realizes this and has the courage to just say "fuck it, he's not guilty."
"ARE you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
This was written by somebody worried that lawyers will run out of work.
It should ask instead something like "Have you used in the last X days", i.e. about tangible facts.
Excellent point.
I completely agree. If I was a juror I would have a hard time buying into the prosecutors case here. The jury system was originally thought of as a defense against an over zealous government prosecution. It doesn't take much to see this case as exactly that. Even MAGA types if they actually allowed themselves to see outside their own Trumpian box should wonder how one can violate a gun law when they think guns laws are unconstitutional. I don't think gun laws are unconstitutional but I don't think you apply any law this selectively.
I think the "or addicted to" line would probably apply to him even if he honestly thought he was not using. I mean, as I understand it, once you are addicted, you are addicted for life and the question is really are you using or not. But then, I am no expert on these matters, nor a lawyer.
"I mean, as I understand it, once you are addicted, you are addicted for life" Not the sense the word addicted is being used here. It means a current physiological addiction., i.e. would he have actual withdrawal systems if he didn't use that day.
The word controlled in other controlled substances applies to the preceeding list of chemicals. Caffeine is not a controlled stimulant..
I think you're wrong. All three counts cite Hunter "knowingly" offered (2 charges of) false statements and (1 charge of) possession while being a drug user.
The key is "knowingly" -- if one does these things unknowingly, it is not a crime. Abbe Lowell's defense centers on this part. If Hunter misread/misunderstood the meaning of the law or otherwise misconstrued his status, he's not guilty.
Might an average person consider Lowell's claim as a reasonable scenario? Let me put it this way: How many people have you come across who are clearly alcoholics but are in denial? What about elicit drug users, in-between moments of sobriety?
This being in Connecticut where the opioid epidemic was widespread, how many people do you suppose would know of someone with firearms and is also addicted?
I think the panoply of outcomes remains available, from total exoneration, to a hung jury, to guilty on all three, or a mix.
The trial is in Wilmington, DE. I predict the jury will acquit, it was a stupid case in the first place.
Sorry, Delaware. I don't even know why I wrote Connecticut. ????
Apropos of nothing, Convicted Felon Donald J Trump's concealed carry permit is being revoked, because of his Convicted Felon status. Will they also confiscate his firearms? And if so, will searches be carried out? At all of his New York State properties ... or "branded" properties?
(I hear he doesn't even own "Trump Tower"; he just rents a room there.)
I posted a related article the other day, but won't search for the others seen later bc of cold, coughing: he was reported as having turned in two of his guns to NY at the time he was charged in NY, but transferred the third one to Florida.
At least one of Trump's various bail orders has a "no firearms" condition. If Trump has any firearms to be confiscated, he's in breach of his bail conditions.
i'd like to see hunter and donald both get 90 days
mainly i'd like to see trump get time so we can walk this through the court system
then all this nonsense about no secret service in prison, etc., is settled when we need to prosecute the next trump
'veritas' type sting on alito; wapo:
In the audio, the filmmaker Lauren Windsor is heard saying to Alito she doesn’t think “we can negotiate with left” to end the nation’s polarization and that religious conservatives need to “win.”
“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replied. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
Windsor later told Alito people who believe in God have to keep fighting “to return our country to a place of godliness.”
“I agree with you,” Alito is heard saying. “I agree with you.”
Another case of "journalists" (if you can call them that in this case) putting words in subjects' mouths and then the media reporting "Oh my gosh, they said THAT?"
It's not like Romney talking about the 47%. Those were Mitt's words incontestably.
Why didn't he get his gun with one of the legal loopholes, gun show, catalog, online, etc.??? His defense team's job would have been infinitely easier. Surprised the prosecutor didn't add felony stupid to the charges