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

Politics & Elections
1303

See, this is an example of how difficult it is for a sober person to understand an addict’s thinking. An addict actively using can believe he’s not an addict. He can stop any time! And if he hasn’t picked up in a couple of days? No longer a habitual user. Now that he thinks of it, he never really was.

Not sure what you exactly meant by “moments of lucidity,” but addicts can have moments of clarity when they recognize their addiction, only to dismiss that thought later. “I was making too big a deal out of it.”

1304

Strung up? As far as I can tell, the likely penalty on the gun case, if convicted, would be probation.

Beyond the form, he was indicted for possessing a gun when battling addiction. That sounds to me like something that should be illegal. And if you cooperate with your probation officer, there should be no jail time.

Diversion to mental health court would be a better way to approach this than giving someone a record as a convicted felon. But doing nothing if guilty would be more wrong, IMHO.

Then, I am no libertarian on guns.

1305

Thanks for the cite. Both rulings seem suspect to me. His psychiatrist’s expertise regarding his state of mind is questionable? Employees altering the form at any point, even after the original was faxed supposedly unaltered, isn’t relevant to the gun store employees’ credibility?

If he’s found guilty, seems to me that judge has opened a wide door for appeal. But what do I know…

1306

Asking an addict if they are an addict is like asking if someone if they are a narcissist. Not many narcissists believe they are narcissists, much less admit it to others. Part of the problem with addiction is getting the person to admit they have a problem in the first place. They could be doing back alley sexual acts to get a $10 hit and still say they are fine and that it’s everyone else who has a problem.

1307

That’s a different statement than the one that @BobLibDem made.

I agree with your sentiment and agreed with a similar one made by @Cheesesteak in post 1298.

1308

I get your point now. Sorry for my confusion.

1309

per cnn:

Recounting the late summer 2018 visit to Los Angeles while Hunter Biden was in treatment, Naomi Biden said she told her father she was “so proud of him” and that she was so happy that she got to introduce her partner – now husband – to him.

Naomi Biden said her dad "seemed like the clearest he had been since my uncle died … he seemed really great.”

After seeing Hunter Biden in late October 2018, Naomi Biden said “he seemed great. He seemed hopeful.”

Prosecutors are now questioning Naomi Biden on cross-examination.

Naomi Biden’s answers have been quiet and short, generally. Some of her answers were almost close to a whisper.

Naomi Biden said she knew Hunter Biden, her father, was “struggling with addiction” but that she never saw her dad doing drugs in front of her.

She couldn’t pinpoint exactly when she learned of Hunter Biden’s drug abuse.

“After my uncle died, things got bad,” she said, referring to Beau Biden’s death in summer 2015.

During her direct testimony, Naomi Biden also testified that in late October 2018, she used her father’s truck and that she didn’t see drugs inside.

Hallie Biden had testified earlier during the trial that in late October 2018, she found drug paraphernalia in the car at the same time that she found the gun and residue she thought was from drugs.

A series of emotional texts between Hunter Biden and his daughter, Naomi, were read to jurors during her testimony on Friday.

Naomi Biden had asked Hunter Biden if she would see him while he was in New York in late October 2018.

“I’m really sorry dad I can’t take this,” the texts said, adding that she wanted to “hang out with you.”

Hunter Biden replied that night he was sorry he had been unreachable.

Court has taken a break for lunch.

1310

I assumed that as well. The fact that the form was altered later doesn’t seem relevant to the case since the case is about the original form which the government has on file, since that was the one sent in. I don’t see how bringing it up would be relevant unless you want to suggest that Hunter filled out the form differently and it was the store that changed it to say he wasn’t an addict and drug user, and I don’t see the defense using that as a strategy. If Hunter’s defense team admits that Hunter is the one who filled out the form as it was sent in, it doesn’t matter what the store did with it afterward. It would just confuse the jury.

1311

Do they have the actual original form? Why was one faxed if they were sending the original?

1312

I assume they had the original form in their store records that they later doctored for whatever reason. But since the government was faxed the version before it was doctored, that’s all they care about.

1313

I disagree. Why would we assume there was no other alteration if we establish the store had no reluctance to alter it later? I asked if the original still existed because that seems to be the only way to confirm there was no monkey business at the point of sale. Reasonable doubt…

I don’t know what that industry’s documentation requirements are, but in my world, document images could be considered authoritative documents, and originals were destroyed after a certain time frame. For certain forms, that was 90 days after receipt. And we damn sure destroyed them. Eliminated any subsequent discovery worries.

ETA: Not implying my firm altered forms—we didn’t. But it was a best practice not to keep records around that could even suggest a discrepancy where none actually existed.

1314

Again, because the defense is not making that claim. And if they aren’t making that claim then there is no reason to bring it up.

It would be like if someone was in court for vehicular homicide and you point out that there were tinted windows that might obscure the driver’s identity, yet you don’t contest in any way that the defendant was driving the car (and was the sole occupant). Why would you bring that up?

IANAL but I can understand why the judge would not want the defense to confuse the jury with something that really isn’t relevant.

1315

They’re not making that claim because the judge ruled they can’t! The ruling wasn’t made in a vacuum.

1316

Are you sure? I haven’t seen anywhere that the defense is trying to deny that Hunter filled out the form that way, do you have a cite for that?

(If they were trying to do that then I would agree with you that it should be relevant.)

1317

My WAG is that if the only thing that was changed was something about his passport/ID, it’s irrelevant to the case. If the store owner had checked the “I’m not a drug user” box, I suspect it would be admissible.
Maybe?

1318

From @rocking_chair’s cite above:

1319

Yes, if we could assume that. But the defense’s point presumably would be that’s not a reasonable assumption, since the store had no compunctions about altering the form later.

1320

per cnn:

When her testimony was over, Naomi Biden, flanked by two people with their arms around her, walked slowly away from the courtroom. She had a tear streaming down her face, but quickly wiped it away with a shaky hand.

During her testimony, a member of Hunter Biden’s legal team walked out of the courtroom and whispered, “Naomi is doing really well.”

Naomi Biden walked into a black SUV and waited there for a few minutes. Then, first lady Jill Biden, along with Hunter’s wife Melissa Cohen Biden left the building and they departed the area at the same time.

She is not expected to resume testimony after the lunch break.

James Biden is waiting in the witness room down a narrow atrium connected to the courtroom where his nephew is standing trial. He is expected to testify in the defense’s case Friday afternoon.

During lunch, part of Hunter’s legal team was seen carrying boxes of Jimmy John’s sandwiches to the attorney’s side room where Hunter stays during lunch.

“Jimmy John’s again?” one law enforcement officer posted outside the room asked.

“Every day,” one of Biden’s legal team responded.

1321

Would the judge know more than we do in this situation? All we know is that the form was altered, does the judge know what, specifically, was altered and/or what the defense planned to use it for?

If the judge knew that the only thing altered was something regarding the ID and that the defense just wanted to undermine that store’s credibility, would that be a good reason not to allow it since it’s irrelevant?

Is the defense suggesting Hunter checked the “I use drugs” box and the store changed it so the sale would go through?

I guess I’m not seeing what the store owner could change that would prove/disprove Hunter was actively using cocaine at the time of the sale.

1322

So again, they aren’t alleging that the store employees altered the form before submitting it. They aren’t contesting that the form as it was faxed in, the form that led to the charges in this case, was filled out by Hunter in the way that the prosecution stated.

I understand that they want to show that the employees lack credibility for altering the form after the fact, and there is some logic to that. But I also understand if the judge wouldn’t consider that worthy of admission as evidence. Who altered the form? Why? I imagine they don’t have concrete answers for that, and so all it does is muddy the waters. I don’t disagree with that conclusion by the judge.