DOJ Indicts Hunter Biden on Gun Charges

My understanding is that a plea deal is still possible, but I do not know that for sure as IANAL.
#3 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

Hunters lawyers told the feds to "Rip it up" if immunity isn't in the plea.
abcnews.go.com

Awe, look at the gun haters all bitchy about the laws actually being enforced.

That's hilarious given the thread after thread Lumpers complaining about Hunter possibly being indicted.

I am the one that said the gun laws need to be enforced. Talk about gaslighting.

Impossible! You told us the corrupt Biden DOJ was blocking this!
Could it be that Joe Biden isn't a corrupt POS like your hero Donald Trump?!
#1 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

You don't really understand what is happening do you?

It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

It will. Usually this is a light slap on the wrist crime, if even that.

#7 | POSTED BY REDIAL AT 2023-09-14 02:15 PM | REPLY

I'm not sure what world you live in.

FTA
"Two of the counts carry a maximum prison sentence of 10 years, while the third has a maximum of five years"

I'm not sure what world you live in.

The one where almost no one gets prosecuted for lying on a gun application form, and no one ever gets close to the maximum penalty for anything.

@#5 ... I am the one that said the gun laws need to be enforced. ...

As have I.

So, what's yer point?

... Hunters lawyers told the feds to "Rip it up" if immunity isn't in the plea. ...

That was back in July. Perhaps there's been a change in Mr H. Biden's approach?

As I mentioned in #3... My understanding is that a plea deal is still possible, but I do not know that for sure as IANAL.

I'm not sure what world you live in.
FTA
"Two of the counts carry a maximum prison sentence of 10 years, while the third has a maximum of five years"
#8 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

And?

First time offenders are almost always offered a diversion program unless they have extensive criminal histories.

Unless you want to treat Hunter specially?

Very humorous. The GOP is cheering because someone has been indicted for unlawfully having a firearm. Can't make this stuff up.

I am the one that said the gun laws need to be enforced, when the subject is a political opponent.
#5 | POSTED BY ONENUT

At least be honest.

If the defendant wasn't Hunter Biden.

This would never have gone to court.

At most it would have been a fine.

The GOP is cheering because someone has been indicted for unlawfully having a firearm.

Where's Boaz to defend his right to gun ownership?

Oh. That's right.

Politics says Boaz will be fine with this.

It's what makes republicans hypocrites.

All their double standards.

Impossible! You told us the corrupt Biden DOJ was blocking this!
Could it be that Joe Biden isn't a corrupt POS like your hero Donald Trump?!
#1 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

You don't really understand what is happening do you?

#6 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Yes I do.

Biden let the DOJ appoint a special prosecutor to indict his son instead of protecting him.

He is letting his son go to trial or plead guilty rather than pardoning him.

He is showing Republicans how a president should act.

Do YOU understand this or do I need to break out the crayons and draw you a picture?

rather than pardoning him.

Not that that wouldn't be funny AF.

After he wins reelection, I hope Biden commutes his son's sentence. Just the way Trump did for all his homies.

After he wins reelection, I hope Biden commutes his son's sentence.

He can just do it before the election. I don't think he will, but it would be funny.

Does this bozo not have his 2A rights? I thought this was America

#19 | POSTED BY GONOLES92

About that...

One or all 3 of the charges may be tossed as Unconstitutional because of the recent CONSERVATIVE SCOTUS opinions on the 2nd Amendment.

A Federal Appeals Court has already said the charge of possessing a gun while being an addict is Unconstitutional.
www.cnn.com

Since Charges 1 and 2 are mostly dependent on that charge. The case is already in a bit of trouble.

Republicans done played themselves.

Watching the wingnuts going so hard after a private citizen over an old gun charge based on an admission in a book is delicious. All rabid and frothy, looking for something, anything to distract from the 91 felony indictments of their orange savior, and the remarkable amount of looking the other way with T***p's kids, who worked for the government while profiting from China and Saudi Arabia and money-laundering charities...it's really a sight to see.

If it doesn't get laughed out of court by the judge, I hope he takes it to trial and exposes the fascists for who they are. Be careful what you wish for, fascists, your team may not like what comes of this.

REDIAL

Biden doesn't get into DOJ business, not even for his son.

However, it's clear to me that the DOJ is just going through the motions to take the so-called "Hunter Biden" scandal off the Republican play bill for 2024.

Biden doesn't get into DOJ business, not even for his son.

I know, but that's kind of sad. The meltdowns on this site would be epic!

Where's Boaz to defend his right to gun ownership?

If he committed a crime, he needs to be indicted. Simple as that.

Politics says Boaz will be fine with this.

No, politics says you would be fine with ignoring this, as you are hinting now.

I've never hinted I would be fine with this.

I think Merrick Garland is just doing the President a little favor all on his own. Strictly by the book, of course.

Hey, if he broke the law, charge him.

Maybe then the GOP will STFU about Hunter Biden and we can move on.

I think Merrick Garland is just doing the President a little favor all on his own.

Probably. The next plea deal will probably generate meltdowns anyway.

" He is letting his son go to trial or plead guilty rather than pardoning him"

The first plea deal was so egregious that it fell apart under judicial scrutiny. That's the ONLY reason he's being indicted on a gun charge now.

The House investigation has been uncovering all sorts of serious malfeasance and potentially very serious illegal activities tying son to dad. Under special counsel guidelines Garland is supposed to appoint someone outside government. Weiss is not only not outside government he's the same guy who orchestrated the ridiculous plea that imploded under scrutiny. This appointment is to prevent the House from digging up more evidence - "We can't give you any of that. It's under investigation." This is why the impeachment inquiry was initiated - to maximize the House's investigation powers.

The first plea deal was so egregious that it fell apart under judicial scrutiny.

It was. Even the judge said it was unenforceable.

The first plea deal was so egregious that it fell apart under judicial scrutiny. That's the ONLY reason he's being indicted on a gun charge now.
The House investigation has been uncovering all sorts of serious malfeasance and potentially very serious illegal activities tying son to dad. Under special counsel guidelines Garland is supposed to appoint someone outside government. Weiss is not only not outside government he's the same guy who orchestrated the ridiculous plea that imploded under scrutiny. This appointment is to prevent the House from digging up more evidence - "We can't give you any of that. It's under investigation." This is why the impeachment inquiry was initiated - to maximize the House's investigation powers.

#28 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Reading not your thing?

The first deal fell apart because there was a disagreement over how it covered a more serious gun charge...which has now been ruled Unconstitutional in one appeals court.

"The House investigation has been uncovering all sorts of serious malfeasance and potentially very serious illegal activities tying son to dad."

So why are the GOP and Fox News saying they haven't found that evidence? Oh its because you are a liar. As usual.

Hey Jeff,

Why can't McCarthy get enough votes to authorize an Impeachment Inquiry if they have all this evidence you say exists?

Hmm...

A tidbit:

The controversy prompted the newspaper to request statistics from the Justice Department to determine whether someone falsely filling out the form face much a risk of prosecution. The answer? They don't. The statistics are relevant as Congress discusses how to strengthen gun laws after high-profile mass shootings. They are a prime illustration of how existing laws are not always rigorously or consistently enforced. Lying on the form is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. For being a user of unlawful drugs in possession of a firearm, the punishment is up to five years. The odds of being charged for lying on the form are virtually nonexistent.

www.ncja.org

The House investigation has been uncovering all sorts of serious malfeasance and potentially very serious illegal activities

Here we go again. Jeff falling for preliminary, unfounded claims and telling us all to wait for the next report. You do this constantly; it's getting really pathetic.

@#28 ... The first plea deal was so egregious that it fell apart under judicial scrutiny. ...

How often do judges reject plea deals?
www.quora.com

... First, let's define the two types of rejection that can happen in a plea deal (at least in the US):

- - - The judge rejects the guilty plea entirely, forcing the matter to trial; or

- - - The judge accepts the guilty plea but sentences the defendant to a lesser or greater sentence than that upon which the plea was based.

The first situation happens far more often than the second situation -- generally in situations where there is a reasonable question as to whether the defendant is really entering their plea "knowingly and willingly" as defined by the case law of the jurisdiction. I've seen this happen when the defendant seems unwilling or incapable of engaging in the recitation of facts required for such a plea " making a statement that contradicts their intent to plead guilty or where they seem uncertain as to key facts that would be necessary for a conviction on the merits. The judge in these situations has a duty to ensure that both due process is being granted, as well as to ensure that justice is being done in the matter before them. Some judges are more likely to let these pass than others " but there's no legal requirement that a judge accept a guilty plea if there's even a slight indication that such plea is not based in fact. ...

So why are the GOP and Fox News saying they haven't found that evidence? Oh its because you are a liar. As usual.
#30 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Worse, McCarthy refused to name a single shred of evidence when announcing the impeachment inquiry. He literally based his decision on solely ALLEGATIONS and publicly state so. Allegations, mind you, that are only coming from a group of Republicans. They're going to investigate allegations that they came up with.

How fnkcin' convenient.

you would be fine with ignoring this, as you are hinting now.

I posted what I believe would be a reasonable consequence.

A fine.

I also posted on the nooner Hunter Biden is experiencing what Black Americans face everyday.

The full force of the justice department.

Every American has a 2nd amendment uninfringed right to bear arms.

...

(Offer not valid to Hunter Biden)

-maga maroons

It is pretty hilarious to see all the RWingers cheering over a gun law being enforced, for a change.

Every American has a 2nd amendment uninfringed right to bear arms.

...

(Offer not valid to Hunter Biden)

-maga maroons

#37 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2023-09-14 05:40 PM

Except that no one infringed on Hunters right to bear arms, unless you think we should do away with the form Hunter lied on. Is that really the hill you want want to die on?

It's hard to follow you clowns. Do you want gun laws or not? Or do you just want them for the lower rungs of society?

unless you think we should do away with the form

I'm actually surprised that there even is such a thing.

"Except that no one infringed on Hunters right to bear arms, unless you think we should do away with the form Hunter lied on."

Is the form an effective tool to keep people like Hunter Biden from improperly obtaining firearms?

Doesn't seem that way.

There's probably room for improvement. Maybe we should require everyone to fill out that form (that part happened) and require the government to clear the individual for purchase (that part failed).

Though that's probably an infringement on rights. The government could take forever to approve someone.

Doesn't seem that way.

There's probably room for improvement. Maybe we should require everyone to fill out that form (that part happened) and require the government to clear the individual for purchase (that part failed).

Though that's probably an infringement on rights. The government could take forever to approve someone.

#41 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2023-09-14 06:05 PM |

Most gun laws don't work. But it's hard for someone like you to be taken seriously because you want more gun laws and in the same breath think Hunter shouldn't have to follow them.

t's hard to follow you clowns. Do you want gun laws or not? Or do you just want them for the lower rungs of society?

#39 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

It's you that's hard to follow bro.

Everyone gets a gun except Hunter Biden. Because he is the president's son. How wired is that?

Enjoy your revenge and retribution. It won't end well for your fragile egos if he takes it to the supremes.

" The House investigation has been uncovering all sorts of serious malfeasance and potentially very serious illegal activities tying son to dad."

All sorts, you say? So far, it's just the made-up sort.

And concrete evidence, or are you doing your Rudy Colludy impersonation, where you've got lot of theories ... just no evidence?

@#42 ... Most gun laws don't work. ...

Probably because of the intentional loopholes left in them, e.g., the gun show loophole.

@#28 ... The House investigation has been uncovering all sorts of serious malfeasance and potentially very serious illegal activities tying son to dad. ...

Specifically, which House investigation?

Then there's this...

What Republicans Will Do If They Win The House, In Their Own Words (October 2022)
talkingpointsmemo.com

... We're not investigating Hunter Biden for political reasons," Rep. James Comer (R-KY), who is poised to chair the House Oversight Committee in the case of a GOP flip, told TIME this month. "We're investigating Hunter Biden because we believe he's a national security threat, who we fear has compromised Joe Biden."

Comer then quickly told on himself, adding: "The Hunter Biden investigation is slowly becoming the Joe Biden investigation." ...

The FBI, in reviewing instant background checks for firearm purchases, detected 112,000 lie-and-try crimes in fiscal 2017 alone, and federal investigators had names and addresses on the filled-out forms. How many were prosecuted? Twelve, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report.

www.usatoday.com

12 prosecutions out of 112,000 cases. That's a stunning 0.01% prosecution rate. Hunter is in a very exclusive club.

@#46

And this...

Jamie Raskin Says Republicans Have 'Conclusively Disproven' Their Own Biden Corruption Allegations
www.huffpost.com

... In his quest to uncover evidence of corruption by President Joe Biden, House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-Ky.) has only managed to undermine his key allegations against the president, according to the committee's top Democrat.

"Chairman Comer's investigation has conclusively disproven the Republican allegations against President Biden," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said Monday in a statement accompanying a report summarizing the committee's work so far this year.

It's a scathing document that portrays the Republican investigation as a transparent effort to create a false equivalence between Biden and former President Donald Trump, who faces four criminal trials for conduct during and after his presidency. ...

As a result, Comer and other Republicans claim the elder Biden routinely lied whenever he said he had no involvement in his son's work.

But according to the transcript, Archer said the conversations he witnessed weren't about business and that he never saw Joe Biden help his son's business or Hunter Biden use his father to influence policy. Archer also said he had no knowledge of the Bidens receiving bribes from Ukrainian oligarchs, and that he was not aware of any effort by Hunter Biden to use his dad to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. ...

[emphasis mine]

... according to the transcript, Archer said the conversations he witnessed weren't about business and that he never saw Joe Biden help his son's business or Hunter Biden use his father to influence policy. Archer also said he had no knowledge of the Bidens receiving bribes from Ukrainian oligarchs, and that he was not aware of any effort by Hunter Biden to use his dad to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. ...

Wait, what?

Isn't a significant part of the Republican's premise based upon what Mr Archer testified? Didn't the GOP raise a whole brouhaha about his testimony?

And now it seems the the Republicans have been misrepresenting his testimony?

I am shocked.

Shocked, I say.