The Hunter Biden Investigation {thread started in 2019}, Hunter Pardoned on December 1, 2024

Does not follow.

Except for homicide, the great majority of crimes go unpunished.

I’d concede that there are additional reasons to wonder if it is politically motivated. But, well, if you are in a political family, there is more risk of your crimes being noticed than the average person. That’s what I think is happening here, and it’s not exactly the same as saying charges are politically motivated.

As for the Second Amendment, first of all, I do not think the recent conservative Supreme Court gun rulings were correctly decided. But even if they were, it is a stretch to say that what Biden is charged with goes against any Supreme Court runing to date.

A lower court should not be making up a new constitutional right for people with drug problems to fill out the gun background form incorrectly. That would be up the Supreme Court to deal with at a final appeal.

If guilty as charged, and if the sentencing guidelines allow, I think probation would be fair and prison a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The lower court has a duty to rule on a constitutional challenge, if made by a party. If there is no guidance from the Supreme Court, their job is to analyze the question and rule on it. That’s not “making up a new constitutional right.”

because they dont catch the perp. In this case, it is pretty obvious.

Its not even a just 2nd ad issue.

As indicated in my link, the guidance from the Supreme Court Bruen case is to look at the historical tradition of gun regulation up until 1791 and see if modern laws are analogous. To make a long story short, this requires a lot of historical work. Googling, I am finding some colonial precedent for disarming drunks. I see nothing on cocaine, but the justices would probably see the drug they probably take (alcohol) as no worse than the drug they probably do not take (cocaine).

Re your last post, that seems to be about gun rights for felons, or suspected felons. It is the case that they could legally buy a gun in 1791, just like older children probably could. However, it really would take a lot more historical research beyond googling to do this correctly.

Jury is sat, 6 men, 6 women, 4 women alternates.

Opening statements start tomorrow. Dr Biden spent her 73rd birthday in the courtroom with hunter.

It is also a 5th ad issue- self incrimination.

Yes, thank you. The talking point ‘the majority of crimes go unpunished’ does carry an underlying–and false–assumption that the perpetrators of those crimes are known, but that we as a society choose to let them go unpunished. (And therefore, the talking point continues with an unwarranted implication: we should prosecute Hunter Biden for ticking a particular box on his gun application form. Because, you know, Law and Order.)

I will admit to some schadenfreudish pleasure in watching right-wingers twist themselves into knots to defend the notion that 'some people should not have guns’ (in relation to HB) while still advocating that ‘the government has no right to deny gun ownership to anyone, even those adjudicated mentally ill or under restraining orders.’

Surely some brains are being stressed to an unfixable degree.

Agree. But it goes both ways, though: left-wingers have pushed to imposed strict restrictions on access and ownership of guns, yet I can only assume they want HB to be found not guilty.

Not this left winger. If Hunter Biden broke a law, he should be punished for it same as any one else. No less, and no more.

Why would you assume that?

That would imply that left-wingers are arguing that HB should have been granted a gun permit despite being an abuser of drugs.

As far as I can see, most on the left are NOT arguing that. In other words, they’re okay with drug abusers being denied gun permits–they’re okay with strict restrictions remaining in place.

Instead, I see arguments that HB likely believed that he was being truthful in checking off the ‘am not currently a drug abuser’ box, because he’d just completed a stint in rehab.

The entire issue of the trial is ‘was he truthful in checking off that box, or was he lying?’

Ditto.

I don’t know if I count as a “left-winger” but it seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming that Hunter is guilty of crimes and I would not be disappointed to see him found guilty.

Per cnn:

A jury of Delaware residents has been empaneled in the criminal trial of Hunter Biden on federal gun charges.

Opening statements in the case involving President Joe Biden’s son were delivered on Tuesday, following the dismissal of one juror who cited difficulty getting to the courthouse each day.

The judge said that the juror did not realize they would be expected to be at the courthouse every day, and she was only able to make it to court yesterday because her dad was off work.

One of the four originally selected alternates who also hear the case will replace that juror.

Judge Maryellen Noreika provided the jury with instructions for the trial of Hunter Biden on Monday.

The instructions outlined a variety of points for jurors to follow and keep in mind for the trial including; the role of the jury, conduct of the jury, questions by jurors and note taking.

The instructions said that the court will not provide jurors with a written account of testimony, but they are allowed to take notes.

“At the end of the trial, you must make your decision based on what you remember of the evidence. You will not have a written transcript of the testimony to review. You must pay close attention to the testimony as it is given,” the instructions read.

Prosecution’s opening statement: Prosecutors began Tuesday with a fiery opening statement in the Hunter Biden trial. Prosecutor Derek Hines said that Biden was addicted to crack and lied on a federal form about his addiction when buying a gun. “We’re here because of the defendant’s lies and choices,” Hines said. “No one is above the law. It doesn’t matter who you are or what your name is.” Prosecutors also told the jury about Hunter Biden’s memoir. They quoted him describing his “superpower of finding crack anywhere, anytime.” Turning to the jury, Hines said, “those are [Hunter’s] words.” Prosecutors also showed pictures of drugs to the jury that they got from Hunter’s electronic devices.

Defense’s opening statement: Defense attorney Abbe Lowell highlighted the word “knowingly” in the charges brought against Hunter Biden as he began his opening statement Tuesday. Lowell said that prosectors had “left out the word” and argued it is a key part of the case. In addition, he said, out of the 11 days Hunter Biden possessed the firearm, it was only out of a lockbox one day. “They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hunter knowingly violated the law,” Lowell said, adding that what Hunter thought at the time was key. The defense also suggested that Hunter Biden didn’t have much interest in buying a gun, trying to undermine prosecutors’ claims that he knowingly lied to the gun dealers.

Prosecutors called their first witness, FBI special agent Erika Jensen.

Jensen will be used by the prosecutors to introduce much of the digital evidence in this case, including embarrassing and intensely personal messages and images from Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Prosecutors played audio clips from Hunter Biden reading his autobiography saying that prior to a California trip in 2019, he had been going through a four year-period of addiction.

Citing cash withdrawals, FBI agent Erika Jensen placed the time of Hunter’s trip to California in late April 2019.

Hunter purchased the firearm – the root of the charges against him – in October 2018. In his opening statement, defense attorney Abbe Lowell said prosecutors haven’t shown evidence he was a drug user at the time.

Before the lunch break, some of the jurors took notes during the most intense periods of the reading of Hunter Biden’s audiobook, including when he described the utter “shame” and “depravity” of his lifestyle in Los Angeles, buying crack from people in homeless encampments.

The members of the jury — which include several people who lost loved ones to addiction — heard nearly an hour of Hunter Biden narrating his book from the audiobook version. He explained his many near-death experiences as he bounced between various rehab stints and drug binges.

The jury’s lunch Tuesday included sandwiches, sodas and a large box of cookies. Several jurors ate their lunch in a courtyard outside.

Jensen is testifying about how investigators corroborated Hunter Biden’s admissions of drug use in his memoir. Her appearance has also allowed prosecutors to introduce portions of Biden’s book into evidence, playing excerpts from the audiobook.

Prosecutors are showing the jury the infamous laptop that Hunter Biden left at a Delaware repair shop in 2019.

FBI agent Erika Jensen testified that authorities verified that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden because of its serial number and other records from Apple.

In previous court filings, prosecutors said they’d use messages they found on the laptop to demonstrate that Hunter Biden was using crack cocaine in 2018, around the time when he bought a gun.

Text messages shown Tuesday afternoon to the jury demonstrate Hunter Biden’s efforts to get drugs and meet with dealers, prosecutors say.

“ASAP if you can,” Hunter Biden allegedly texted one of his contacts, and another time he texted, “can you come this way now?”

“You want 10 grams?” another contact allegedly messaged Hunter Biden.

Prosecutors showed invoices from a rehab facility in Los Angeles nearly a month before Hunter Biden purchased a gun in Delaware.

The invoice, for care including detox and a “sober companion,” ran several thousand dollars and spanned over a week in the summer of 2018.

An FBI agent testified that in his book, Hunter said he relapsed two weeks after leaving rehab.

FBI special agent Erika Jensen testified that investigators found the images on Hunter Biden’s devices, which were subpoenaed in 2019. Those devices included his iCloud backup as well as his laptop.

Prosecutors say the pictures of drugs were exchanged between Hunter and some of his drug dealers in California. Hunter described in his memoir that “depravity” and drug binges that dominated his time in Los Angeles that year.

Prosecutors introduced into evidence the ATF form that was filled out when Hunter Biden bought the gun on October 12, 2018.

Hunter Biden’s answer to question #11E is the basis of 2 of the 3 charges against him. Biden checked the box saying he wasn’t a user of, or addicted to, illegal drugs.

Prosecutors say that was an unlawful false statement

On an almost daily basis, Hunter Biden was withdrawing hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars in cash around the time he purchased the firearm in 2018, according to an FBI agent.

On October 12, the day Hunter Biden bought the weapon, he withdrew $5,000 in cash, according to a receipt shown to the jury.

Hunter Biden, prosecutors say, paid for the gun in cash.

From September to November that year, Hunter Biden withdrew $151,640 in cash.

Under cross-examination, a key government witness conceded that Hunter Biden might not have been using drugs continuously from 2015 to 2019, which covers when he bought the gun in 2018.

This is notable because, earlier in the day, prosecutors highlighted how Hunter Biden said in his memoir that he was an “active” addict during that 5-year period.

“I didn’t get the sense it was the entire period,” FBI agent Erika Jensen said, adding that there were some periods of time in that 5-year window when Biden did not appear to be abusing crack cocaine.
Hunter lawyer Abbe Lowell is also trying to point out discrepancies between what his client wrote in his 2021 memoir and what actually happened. For example, in one case, Biden went on a flight that he claimed he missed or skipped.

Lowell is likely doing this because prosecutors are relying on the book as key evidence to support their case.

The second day of the Hunter Biden federal gun trial has ended. The first, and as of yet, only witness, FBI agent Erika Jensen, remains on the stand for cross-examination.

Court will resume at 9 a.m. ET on Wednesday.

Am I reading it wrong or did the prosecutors help the defense by saying Hunter paid for the gun with cash?

I believe the prosecutor is saying buying gun bad, even with cash.

It just seems odd since, from what I can tell, they were trying to make a connection between his cash withdrawals and drug use, but then they show other things he spent the cash on. Which means less money for drugs.

On the other hand, I’m guessing the gun was closer to a thousand dollars than five thousand, so he probably had plenty left over for crack, if he was so inclined.

Also some people just prefer cash. I know someone who will only tip with cash. And he tips in 50 or 100 dollar bills.

My prediction: guilty, fine, probation, forgotten by next month … except for right-wing loons who will screech about the president’s crime family. Nothingburger with cheese.

FTR, I think the law prohibiting felons - who are not in prison or on probation - from purchasing or owning guns is unconstitutional.

On that note, I have a couple questions:

  1. Even if he lied on the form, is there a chance the jury disagrees with the law and finds him not guilty via jury nullification?

  2. If he is found guilty, is it possible the law could be struct down by higher courts during the appeal process?