Agree. But not because of his vices, IMO. It’s due to his shady relationship w/ a China-based energy company, and questionable tax returns.
Did anybody note if the form had been checked?
It’s why folks who support Joe Biden aren’t necessarily clamoring to defend him. The left isn’t quite as tribal as the right. The Biden family doesn’t have a cult following.
You can criticize him (and he deserves it and more) while still hoping he gets a fair trial, and you can’t put his sins on Joe either. He’s his own screwup.
2 posts were split to a new topic: New user sees ignorance here on the Dope (about Trump)
This topic was automatically opened after 12 minutes.
To return to this issue, @Joey_P has it exactly right. The gun purchase form that Hunter signed was altered after the alleged crime in ways that had nothing to do with the alleged crime.
Whereas if they had monkeyed with the form in a way relevant to the case (I.e. they forged Hunter’s signature, and he’s saying he did mark “yes”; or they changed his answer), that evidence would be admissible.
Judges don’t want cases to go off on tangents. The changing of this form, in the way it has been described, is a tangent in the case.
This way lies Rudy Giuliani and getting disbarred.
If the defense intends to present evidence that the form was altered in ways relevant to the case, then this additional fact that the form was altered after the alleged crime, in an irrelevant way, becomes probative and likely admissible.
But you have to get to the predicate first. The defense can just play defense (in this case, the Feds didn’t prove that Hunter was lying when he signed the form), but they can’t introduce “what if’s” or “alternative theories” that are unfounded or not based on a good faith belief that they have a factual basis.
So as the defense you’re either going to take the position that this is an ambiguous time in Hunter’s life, and he didn’t technically violate the law, or you are going to have to bring witnesses to demonstrate that this is indeed a big conspiracy. But if you have no reason to think that Hunter didn’t sign the form, you don’t get to imply it to the jury.
Now, having a good faith belief is a very low bar. A defense lawyer is entitled to believe their client, even if they just “believe” them. He tells you he wasn’t there; fine, you can argue that the evidence doesn’t prove he was there.
But if he wants to argue that he was at some other particular place? Then I need some evidence before I present that argument : cell phone data, an alibi witness, a transaction. Something.
I have been educated. My thanks.
I think a defense attorney can toe the line, which they did here.
You can refer to the form that was introduced, which was that original signed by Hunter.
The defense is certainly free to argue that the form was casually completed, and wasn’t done precisely according to the instructions.
Well, it’s all very subjective:
“I ran in high school, and even though I don’t really run now, I still consider myself a runner.”
“I ran a 5k last week, but it’s not the sort of thing I do often… I know plenty of people who are real runners, and no, I don’t consider myself a runner.”
“Are you a X” is about self-identity, and is subjective. Any answer will require assumptions on the part of the respondent about the intent of the question, and is open to interpretation.
Even “do you brush your teeth?” can be answered “yes” or “no” in an honest manner given the exact same facts.
These are subjective self-reflections posing as facts.
If I was on the jury, I’d listen to what fellow-jurors said, but my first thought is that you are a beer user.
Also, you might really need a driver’s license, such as to get to a job where there is no public transportation. I doubt that Hunter needed a revolver in that sense.
I googled to find out why Hunter wanted a gun and came up empty.
As a matter of public policy, I do not think people who use cocaine, regardless of whether they intend to go cold turkey today, should have guns.
It seems like the case can be broken down into two separate issues:
- Did Hunter lie when he filled out the form?
- Does Hunter meet the criteria to be considered a user and/or addict?
The first issue is based on Hunter’s state of mind. Did he believe he was telling the truth or that he was lying? If in his mind he’s not a user or addict, then he didn’t lie. But if he was telling everyone he was a user and addict and then checked no, then the case is stronger that he lied.
The second issue is something that seems like the court could decide. Some comparable examples might be laws against “reckless driving” and “display of excessive speed”. Even if someone doesn’t believe they were driving recklessly, if the police and court decide they were, they will be found guilty.
Even if most everyone considers Hunter a user and an addict, that doesn’t mean he lied. But it would mean he could be found guilty of buying a gun while a user/addict and be subject to those penalties. But I don’t think he can be found guilty of lying on the form unless they can actually prove in his mind he knew he was lying when he filled out the form. Even if today he looks back and agrees he was an addict at the time, that doesn’t mean he realized that at the time. His state of mind back then may have been that he was fully in control and not an addict/user.
It’s going to come down to the jury instructions. The judge hasn’t decided yet on what the jury will be told, but both sides have submitted their opinion.
Were it me? I’d vote guilty, albeit reluctantly. It’s a shitty law, but he was an active drug addict when he bought the gun.
The cross examination of his daughter, which included texts from her frustrated that she couldn’t find him during the time in question (and responses form him at 2 am) were damning for the defense.
The form in evidence is a black-and-white copy of the original form. The defense is not allowed to talk about the actual piece of paper that Hunter Biden signed. The prosecution is alleging that Biden committed a crime when he signed a particular piece of paper and the defense can’t show that piece of paper to the jury.
Are you sure?
From my earlier cite
That wouldn’t be apparent in a black and white copy. I think it’s the later B&W copy that the defense wanted to also introduce, to show that it was altered.
There’s a third count rarely discussed here. Prosecutors say he knowingly possessed the gun for 11 days as he was battling an addiction to illegal drugs, a violation of federal law.
Is eleven days a very short time, especially if he never did anything with the gun? Yes. If guilty, he should not get jail time.
I approve of your proposal of “you don’t really need a gun so you don’t get a license.” I hope this becomes more widely accepted.
I made a small error. The form in evidence is a copy of the original but it is a color copy. It was sent to the ATF on October 26, 2018. The original, actual piece of paper that HB signed stayed at the gun shop.
It wasn’t until 2021 that somebody on the government side thought it might be a good idea to pick up the original. This is the form the defense is not allowed to talk about. It really is the actual physical piece of paper that Biden signed.
The prosecution has argued that Hunter Biden signing this piece of paper is a crime and that seeing this piece of paper would confuse and/or mislead the jury.
It was the case in a good number of red states until recent Supreme Court cases. If you wanted a gun permit, in, say, New York State, you scheduled an appointment at the police station and discussed your situation. Usually they approved you, but this process stopped many impulsive mistakes.
As for Hunter, it might be hard for me to say an impulsive purchase is intentional. But, next day, I’d hope he’d realize he did something questionable, and call a lawyer for advice. The lawyer might have offered to accompany him while he turns it in to the police through the Delaware Firearm Recovery Program. If, after that, they arrested him for the Form 4473 checkmark, that really would be prosecutorial abuse.
Ah, I see.
I understand your frustration, but the ultimate issue is whether he lied when answering the question, and I can see why the judge didn’t want a diversion into the details of the document on which he provided his answer that aren’t germane to that issue.