kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 4:09 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 3:12 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:56 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:42 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:03 pm
Does this indictment of his bouncing baby boy reflect negatively on Joe Bidens reelection campaign? The folks at the DNC have to be hoping beyond hope that Biden decides to not run so he can spend more time with his family.
Nope; expect all of this to rally the troops.
At least to most people, it "proves" that the DOJ isn't shielding Hunter for political reasons.
Of course, the big problem is that Hunter may well get off entirely because of the prior SCOTUS decision that basically moots this violation. Judge could rule that enforcement is unconstitutional. Or a jury could be persuaded that it's not worth hardly any, if any, punishment.
It's not as if Hunter hasn't publicly admitted he lied on the form about doing drugs and that he got rid of the gun 11 days later in a reckless way. It's really not a violation that would normally even get charged...and maybe is now unconstitutional to convict on.
So, this could well backfire on MAGA.
It certainly is very likely the impeachment nonsense will backfire, all the more so if they actually take a vote without ever having produced any actual evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors by Joe.
Of course, if after 5 years of investigating they finally find some big flow of money into Joe's bank account that can be traced to Hunter's "influence peddling" another matter altogether...but they've never connected the dots remotely close to what rational people would think is actually a "high crime and misdemeanor" or in any way criminal act by Joe. I think that's because there's no there there.
I do think we'll see another indictment of Hunter on the tax charges...probably within the next 3 weeks.
Hunter may do some time at some point on one or more of these things, but he may well get off scot free. Either way, it backfires on MAGA.
Personally, I'd prefer to see Joe declare victory in an historic one term and call for a competitive election among the next generation. Say that you're going to focus on the major issues facing the US and the world with all your energy and not be distracted by campaigning...
What it says to me, if Hunter walks, is the the Party is not serious about gun crime. Tread lightly, or they risk losing voters confidence and trust.
which "Party" ?
The Judge's party? The jury's party?
That's who gets to say whether he "walks" right?
Special Prosecutor Weiss' party? GOP
I keep hearing other prosecutors say that these charges wouldn't normally be brought unless the accused had priors or was dangerous. They say it sure looks like it's only because he's Biden's son. And Weiss only did so when he got so much flack from the House GOP...
If this gets ruled as unconstitutional you sure as heck can't blame the Dems for that...right?
Does Hunter have any priors? What's his personality like when he's using drugs?
The gun laws are what they are. Knowingly buying a gun when you are using/battling drug addiction is specifically mentioned for a reason, right?
No, at least to my knowledge, no priors.
More importantly no prior usage of a gun to commit a crime.
That's the sort of thing that would give rise to these charges...buying a gun after having already committed a crime with one.
Yes, he's quite likely guilty (sure appears to have admitted) that he was using drugs in the time period in which the gun was purchased, though they do actually need to prove that he was doing so at that very time period involved, as opposed to battling drug addiction and clean for a period...he's admitted the drug addiction and he's admitted the gun purchase and he was willing to plead to the overlap, but now the prosecution needs to prove the overlap...and with the recent SCOTUS ruling they need to win the Constitutional argument that seems to say that this law is unconstitutional.
But basically, let's stipulate that he's 'guilty'. The question is whether any other defendant, or most defendants, with the same lack of priors and the same lack of real concern that he's currently dangerous would be prosecuted and from everything I've read the answer is simply...no.
And so the judge OR jury may think this is overzealous prosecution. Little or no time.
So, he may well get off entirely for something I don't think most of us on here wouldn't think was wrong to do (someone on here may agree that it should be unconstitutional to restrict gun ownership to non drug users...).
Me, an owner of multiple guns, I'm interested in keeping weapons out of the hands of people who are dangers to others or themselves and I think there are all sorts of reasonable restrictions that make sense to do so...This particular SCOTUS seems to disagree.
Thus my question to youth was "which party"?