Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

1
Prospective jurors in a federal gun case against President Joe Biden’s son Hunter were questioned Monday on their thoughts about gun rights and drug addiction while the first lady watched from the front row of the courtroom in a show of support for her son. As the first day of jury selection broke for lunch, Hunter Biden walked over to his mom and leaned over the railing that separates the audience from the trial participants to hug and kiss her on the cheek. Monday was the first lady’s 73rd birthday. The judge planned to seat 16 jurors, including four alternates, and the effort was moving swiftly along. One prospective juror who was dismissed said she didn’t know whether she could be impartial because of the opinion she had formed about Hunter Biden based on media reports. “It’s not a good one,” she replied when an attorney asked her opinion. Hunter Biden, who spent the weekend with his parents, has been charged in Delaware with three felonies stemming from a 2018 firearm purchase when he was, according to his memoir, in the throes of a crack addiction. He has been accused of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.

The case is going to trial following the collapse of a plea deal that would have avoided the spectacle of a trial so close to the 2024 election. Another who was not dismissed said he holds a concealed carry permit and owns three handguns. The man said he has strong views on gun ownership and believes every law-abiding citizen should be able to own a gun. “I believe the Second Amendment is very important,” he explained. Attorneys jointly moved to dismiss a woman who expressed strong anti-gun views during questioning. “I would like stronger laws in this country about certain types of weapons,” she said. “The ones with high repeat, you know, that kill children in schools.” The woman also said the government should require more background checks and make it harder to get a gun “that can kill a lot of people at once.” “I would ban them altogether to be honest,” acknowledged the woman, who also said she has donated to Democratic congressional candidates around the country and joined “one of the resistance groups” after the 2016 election.

In a statement Monday, the president said he has “boundless love” for his son, “confidence in him and respect for his strength.” “I am the President, but I am also a Dad,” he said, adding that would have no further comment on the case. “Jill and I love our son, and we are so proud of the man he is today.” The president was nearby, in their Wilmington home, until he left for a campaign reception in Greenwich, Connecticut. He is traveling to France on Tuesday and will be gone the rest of the week. The first lady is scheduled to join him later. Hunter Biden’s sister, Ashley Biden, was also in court, and his wife, Melissa. If convicted, Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison, though first-time offenders do not get anywhere near the maximum, and it’s unclear whether the judge would give him time behind bars.
https://apnews.com/article/hunter-biden ... 5c5e9105c1

Democrats are yelling that this is a political prosecution, the US Atty/Special Counsel who brought the case is a Trump appointee and the US district judge presiding is a Trump appointee. And some Republicans agree that at least the gun charges should never have been brought, they are felonies. If his last name wasn't Biden it is very unlikely he would have been prosecuted. And Hunter has a tax case in CA, Hunter paid the federal taxes and the charges are only misdemeanors.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

2
highdesert wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2024 3:41 pm Democrats are yelling that this is a political prosecution, the US Atty/Special Counsel who brought the case is a Trump appointee and the US district judge presiding is a Trump appointee. And some Republicans agree that at least the gun charges should never have been brought, they are felonies. If his last name wasn't Biden it is very unlikely he would have been prosecuted. And Hunter has a tax case in CA, Hunter paid the federal taxes and the charges are only misdemeanors.
A few things that I see here, most notably in the first line.

Republicans are making essentially the exact same claim regarding Trump's recent trial (and conviction). I remind everyone here that the attorneys who brought the case are Democrats, and the judge is a Biden donor. Small amount, yes, but still a donor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/nyre ... tions.html

So, it appears to me a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Donald Trump broke the law and was tried for it. Hunter Biden broke the law and needs to be tried for it. If Hunter's last name weren't Biden, and especially if he were Black, he'd be rotting in jail by now.

I know, we don't like Republicans around here. Got that. We also should be equally opposed, even much more so, to hypocrisy.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

4
CowboyT wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2024 3:53 pm
highdesert wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2024 3:41 pm Democrats are yelling that this is a political prosecution, the US Atty/Special Counsel who brought the case is a Trump appointee and the US district judge presiding is a Trump appointee. And some Republicans agree that at least the gun charges should never have been brought, they are felonies. If his last name wasn't Biden it is very unlikely he would have been prosecuted. And Hunter has a tax case in CA, Hunter paid the federal taxes and the charges are only misdemeanors.
A few things that I see here, most notably in the first line.

Republicans are making essentially the exact same claim regarding Trump's recent trial (and conviction). I remind everyone here that the attorneys who brought the case are Democrats, and the judge is a Biden donor. Small amount, yes, but still a donor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/nyre ... tions.html

So, it appears to me a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Donald Trump broke the law and was tried for it. Hunter Biden broke the law and needs to be tried for it. If Hunter's last name weren't Biden, and especially if he were Black, he'd be rotting in jail by now.

I know, we don't like Republicans around here. Got that. We also should be equally opposed, even much more so, to hypocrisy.
Yup the New York County (Manhattan) DA has only charged falsification of business records which is a misdemeanor in NY, twice in the last 10 years. They were made into felonies in Trump's case. And being indicted for lying on the ATF 4473 is extremely rare. A plea bargain in the Hunter Biden case would have gone through, but the Trump appointed judge objected. The Bruen decision might help Hunter in his defense.
One U.S. appeals court already has concluded that the drug-related statute at issue in Biden's case may be unconstitutional in some circumstances in light of the Bruen precedent. In a case involving a marijuana user, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August found that U.S. history and tradition "does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage." Hunter Biden's lawyers may cite that 5th Circuit ruling in challenging the drug-related possession count.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sup ... 023-10-02/

Some Republicans like Trey Gaudy have come out saying they'd never prosecute a case like Hunter Bidens.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

6
featureless wrote: Mon Jun 03, 2024 4:15 pm My only hope in this case it that it moves the needle on gun rights. Otherwise, I find it to be political warfare horseshit, just like Trump's recent conviction. (Least we forget, I am fully behind prosecuting Trump for Jan6 because the stakes in that are as high as they get.)
Agree. A ruling on the presidential immunity needs to go against trump. Any president that truly breaks a law needs to be held accountable,
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

7
The federal judge overseeing Hunter Biden’s gun trial dealt his defense two setbacks Sunday, on the eve of jury selection, by blocking one of his expert witnesses and excluding a key piece of evidence the president’s son hoped to use. Noreika granted a request from special counsel David Weiss to block one of Hunter Biden’s expert witnesses from testifying. The defense had lined up a Columbia University-based psychiatrist who would’ve tried to poke holes in prosecutors’ assertions that Hunter Biden knew he was an addict in 2018 when he bought the gun that led to his indictment.
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. 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.” But Noreika ruled the altered version of the form was “irrelevant and inadmissible,” and she went on to blast Hunter Biden’s team for pushing “conspiratorial” theories and “unsupported rhetoric” about the motivations of the Wilmington gun store employees.

“Any probative value it arguably has is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading the jury,” she wrote, further adding that any attempts by the defense to use the altered form to demonstrate the employees’ alleged political bias would have been “unduly prejudicial and invites (jury) nullification.”
https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/02/politics ... index.html
As voir dire began Monday morning, dozens of potential jurors were in the benches of Noreika’s courtroom. By its close, a jury of 12 — six men and six women — and four alternates had been sworn in. The group included an Obama voter, gun owners and people who have seen addiction up close. The jurors — who said they get their news from a mix of sources, including broadcast, cable and even YouTube — are barred from researching and talking about the case. That includes one impaneled juror who relayed that she learned the trial would be underway from her father early Monday en route to the courthouse.
During the selection process, Lowell [Biden's lawyer] parsed jurors’ personal views about firearms, including whether they felt it appropriate for drug users or alcoholics to ever have access to them. Lowell also sought clarity about what exactly people who expressed some knowledge of the case understood — and where they got their news from. If they or family members had purchased guns, they were asked about whether they had been walked through background checks. Biden faces three criminal counts related to his purchase of a gun in which he did not reveal his drug addiction.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... rcna155333
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

11
highdesert wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 8:27 am I've never been instructed by a gun store clerk how to complete the ATF 4473 form. I have had them ask me preliminary screening questions like, am I purchasing the gun for myself, have I ever been convicted of a felony... before they hand me the ATF form.
The only pre-question I’ve had related to when was the last time I filled one out and when I responded a few years they pointed to changes in the form. Basically just let me know to read it carefully and that there was a new item or two. I don’t even recall what the change was. The last few times it’s been an electronic form filled out on a tablet. There’s not much can change or tampered with that would not leave an electronic trail. There was no physical form involved.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

12
Actually, while the judge IS a Trump appointee, she's also supposedly being considered for a further appointment by the Biden admin, and she was part of Senate deal that appointed her and a Democratic judge at the same time. Also, she's apparently a Republican-leaning judge, and donated to both parties in the past.

The plea deal fell through when she wouldn't approve it because the prosecutor refused to concede that Hunter would be immune from further prosecution on these or related charges. Apparently, he, the prosecutor, is a macho gung-ho "Lock-'em-up!" type who makes the special council, David Weiss, look like a marshmellow.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

14
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 12:48 pm Actually, while the judge IS a Trump appointee, she's also supposedly being considered for a further appointment by the Biden admin, and she was part of Senate deal that appointed her and a Democratic judge at the same time. Also, she's apparently a Republican-leaning judge, and donated to both parties in the past.

The plea deal fell through when she wouldn't approve it because the prosecutor refused to concede that Hunter would be immune from further prosecution on these or related charges. Apparently, he, the prosecutor, is a macho gung-ho "Lock-'em-up!" type who makes the special council, David Weiss, look like a marshmallow.
And the two Delaware Democratic US senators approved of her nomination. Hunter's CA trial on his taxes will also be presided over by a Trump appointee and he too got the approval of the two California Democratic US senators.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

15
highdesert wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 2:23 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 12:48 pm Actually, while the judge IS a Trump appointee, she's also supposedly being considered for a further appointment by the Biden admin, and she was part of Senate deal that appointed her and a Democratic judge at the same time. Also, she's apparently a Republican-leaning judge, and donated to both parties in the past.

The plea deal fell through when she wouldn't approve it because the prosecutor refused to concede that Hunter would be immune from further prosecution on these or related charges. Apparently, he, the prosecutor, is a macho gung-ho "Lock-'em-up!" type who makes the special council, David Weiss, look like a marshmallow.
And the two Delaware Democratic US senators approved of her nomination. Hunter's CA trial on his taxes will also be presided over by a Trump appointee and he too got the approval of the two California Democratic US senators.
She, not he.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

16
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 2:30 pm
highdesert wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 2:23 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2024 12:48 pm Actually, while the judge IS a Trump appointee, she's also supposedly being considered for a further appointment by the Biden admin, and she was part of Senate deal that appointed her and a Democratic judge at the same time. Also, she's apparently a Republican-leaning judge, and donated to both parties in the past.

The plea deal fell through when she wouldn't approve it because the prosecutor refused to concede that Hunter would be immune from further prosecution on these or related charges. Apparently, he, the prosecutor, is a macho gung-ho "Lock-'em-up!" type who makes the special council, David Weiss, look like a marshmallow.
And the two Delaware Democratic US senators approved of her nomination. Hunter's CA trial on his taxes will also be presided over by a Trump appointee and he too got the approval of the two California Democratic US senators.
She, not he.
While filling seats on the federal bench in California has proven difficult for Trump, California's Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris have both allowed Scarsi's and Blumenfeld's nominations to go forward.
https://www.courthousenews.com/californ ... e-hearing/

Feinstein voted for Scarsi, Harris was absent.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

17
Speaking of political hit jobs and/or coverup, remember Hunter's laptop all the media and Biden folk said was bullshit? It's been in FBI possession and has been introduced as evidence. My goodness. I guess the Biden camp is as full of horseshit as any other.
Prosecutors introduced into evidence the infamous laptop that emerged in the news ahead of the 2020 presidential election, after Hunter Biden allegedly left it with a Wilmington, Delaware, computer repairman.

Attorneys for Hunter Biden had previously attempted to preclude the laptop as evidence in the trial, arguing that they have "numerous reasons to believe the data had been altered and compromised before investigators obtained the electronic material." But special counsel David Weiss argued in court filings that attorneys for Hunter Biden had not "provided any evidence or information that shows that his laptop contains false information," and the judge agreed to admit it as evidence.

With that in context mind, prosecutors said they cross-referenced every email, WhatsApp message, iMessage, and text message they found with Apple Inc. to establish the credibility of the data.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/4-big-takeawa ... =110830830

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

19
Wino wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 2:07 pm I've no doubt that an estimated 40-60% of filers of 4473, lied on their application whether legal or illegal drugs. This is a horse shit trial. Even the twit senator from S. Carolina says so.
Similar is being said about the trump verdict. What happened to blind justice, eh? You can't seriously say that about one and not the other. They are both political warfare.

I swear I wish media would serve up facts rather than opinion. Living in this country is like living in a family of 5. Mom and dad are pathological liars and arguing all the time. The two oldest siblings (media) always agree with only their same sex side. Little Timmy is left wondering WTF as the house burns down around him.

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

20
Night and day difference in trials and indicted. I'm just happy turd got popped and I expect so will Hunter. I haven't heard (may have missed) that Hunter attacked judge and family or DA and family or threaten jurors or bad mouth courts or called trial rigged - political pay back maybe. If Hunter gets a worse verdict/jail than turd, I'll be pissed. Hunter may be a druggie, liar on 4473 and an asshole, but their aren't enough words to cover the useless POC turd is and always has been.
"Being Republican is more than a difference of opinion - it's a character flaw." "COVID can fix STUPID!"
The greatest, most aggrieved mistake EVER made in USA was electing DJT as POTUS.

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

21
featureless wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 3:08 pm
Wino wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 2:07 pm I've no doubt that an estimated 40-60% of filers of 4473, lied on their application whether legal or illegal drugs. This is a horse shit trial. Even the twit senator from S. Carolina says so.
Similar is being said about the trump verdict. What happened to blind justice, eh? You can't seriously say that about one and not the other. They are both political warfare.

I swear I wish media would serve up facts rather than opinion. Living in this country is like living in a family of 5. Mom and dad are pathological liars and arguing all the time. The two oldest siblings (media) always agree with only their same sex side. Little Timmy is left wondering WTF as the house burns down around him.
I'm not quite understanding. Does it really not matter that Trump falsified records to improve his chances of being elected president of the United States? And doesn't New York have a law on the books about committing a crime to improve your chances of being elected?

Doesn't it make a difference whether your business is being the CEO of a country, a doctor, construction worker, attorney or hot dog vendor?

That wouldn't make sense to me. This seems like a false equivalency. Serious question here, maybe I'm just not getting it.

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

22
SunRiseWest wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 10:04 pm
featureless wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 3:08 pm
Wino wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 2:07 pm I've no doubt that an estimated 40-60% of filers of 4473, lied on their application whether legal or illegal drugs. This is a horse shit trial. Even the twit senator from S. Carolina says so.
Similar is being said about the trump verdict. What happened to blind justice, eh? You can't seriously say that about one and not the other. They are both political warfare.

I swear I wish media would serve up facts rather than opinion. Living in this country is like living in a family of 5. Mom and dad are pathological liars and arguing all the time. The two oldest siblings (media) always agree with only their same sex side. Little Timmy is left wondering WTF as the house burns down around him.
I'm not quite understanding. Does it really not matter that Trump falsified records to improve his chances of being elected president of the United States? And doesn't New York have a law on the books about committing a crime to improve your chances of being elected?

Doesn't it make a difference whether your business is being the CEO of a country, a doctor, construction worker, attorney or hot dog vendor?

That wouldn't make sense to me. This seems like a false equivalency. Serious question here, maybe I'm just not getting it.

What is the same is if politics influenced the prosecution of two high profile individuals like Trump and Hunter Biden. If their names weren't Trump and Biden would they have been prosecuted? Prosecutors have a lot of power in the US and can ruin lives. This is an article I posted on the indictment thread, the problem with long threads is that people often only read recent posts.

Elie Honig who is Sr Legal Analyst for CNN, has a good article in NY Magazine critiquing the case from a legal perspective. He's a former Asst US Atty in SDNY. By the way Honig has always said that the judge should have recused himself.
The following are all undeniable facts.

The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) boasted on the campaign trail, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” (Disclosure: Both Bragg and Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, are friends and former colleagues of mine at the Southern District of New York.)

Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.

The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.

But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge. [Only 2 cases in 10 years according to another source.]

Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.

The Manhattan DA’s employees reportedly have called this the “Zombie Case” because of various legal infirmities, including its bizarre charging mechanism. But it’s better characterized as the Frankenstein Case, cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator.

Trump will appeal, as is his right, and he’s certain to contest the inventive charges constructed by the DA. I won’t go so far as to say an appeals court is likely to overturn a conviction — New York law is broad and hazy enough to (potentially) allow such machinations — but he’s going to have a decent shot at a reversal.

“No man is above the law.” It’s become cliché, but it’s an important point, and it’s worth pausing to reflect on the importance of this core principle. But it’s also meaningless pablum if we unquestioningly tolerate (or worse, celebrate) deviations from ordinary process and principle to get there. The jury’s word is indeed sacrosanct, as I learned long ago. But it can’t fix everything that preceded it. Here, prosecutors got their man, for now at least — but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... e-law.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Jury selection started in Hunter Biden's federal firearms case.

24
SunRiseWest wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 10:04 pm
featureless wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 3:08 pm
Wino wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2024 2:07 pm I've no doubt that an estimated 40-60% of filers of 4473, lied on their application whether legal or illegal drugs. This is a horse shit trial. Even the twit senator from S. Carolina says so.
Similar is being said about the trump verdict. What happened to blind justice, eh? You can't seriously say that about one and not the other. They are both political warfare.

I swear I wish media would serve up facts rather than opinion. Living in this country is like living in a family of 5. Mom and dad are pathological liars and arguing all the time. The two oldest siblings (media) always agree with only their same sex side. Little Timmy is left wondering WTF as the house burns down around him.
I'm not quite understanding. Does it really not matter that Trump falsified records to improve his chances of being elected president of the United States? And doesn't New York have a law on the books about committing a crime to improve your chances of being elected?

Doesn't it make a difference whether your business is being the CEO of a country, a doctor, construction worker, attorney or hot dog vendor?

That wouldn't make sense to me. This seems like a false equivalency. Serious question here, maybe I'm just not getting it.
What Highdesert said. Neither crime is often charged (in fact, Trump's had to be more or less resurrected and glued together whereas Hunter's was self published). Both charges were most likely pursued due to politics, not justice (since neither crimes are commonly charged). But each side says their guy is being unfairly persecuted while the other side's guy is merely being held to the law. That's problematic if we want a functional country.

To my other point on the laptop, if the Hunter laptop was squashed via directive and lies to help Biden win the election, what's the functional difference between his actions and Trump's? But we won't know because honest media wouldn't cover it for fear of helping trump and hurting Biden.

The existence and validity of the laptop does go a long way in explaining why Hunter's first plea deal had what was essentially an immunity clause in it and why the judge rejected it. If there is evidence of crimes on that dirty ass laptop (and there are serious allegations that there is), they deserve some daylight. That is, if we hold to the commonly used "nobody is above the law (except our guy).

Now, please don't take any of this as support for either of the two guys. I find both suffering from a severe lack of quality of character. But the tribalism swirling around these lawsuits is at the root cause of every problem we face. It's worthy of discussion if we want to do better as a human and as humanity. But it's usually just tossed aside as "meh, I don't like him, so the charges are just." There are many such posts on this board. We're supposed to be better than that.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest