Summary
Hunter Biden’s criminal cases were politically motivated and unprecedented in their prosecution.
Despite initially agreeing to a nonprosecution agreement, special counsel David Weiss reneged on the deal and indicted Biden on multiple charges, including gun and tax offenses.
The cases were selectively prosecuted, as other individuals with similar offenses were able to resolve their cases without criminal charges.
The reason it’s rarely charged is our gun laws are shit, unless you snitch on yourself you’re very unlikely to face consequences…
Hunter wrote an autobiography about how he broke federal laws, which most people would never do because of consequences.
But Hunter has never had to face consequences, so he wasn’t worried.
The solution is fixing our gun laws, not telling everyone they don’t matter because we never enforce them.
Joe said recently:
It was bullshit then and it still is.
The wealthy and powerful (and their kids) are seemingly always above the law. Just not us plebians.
He filled out a gun purchase form and said he wasn’t using. I’ve seen many many poor and middle class people that have had charges dropped or changed to recovery care as long as they were committed to recovery.
If he wasn’t a Biden and was some random dude with a DC public defender, this would’ve been over and a non-issue since he’s been demonstrating that he’s participating in a recovery plan.
So the correct solution in your eyes isn’t removing it or even enforcing it…
You think the correct response is just letting Hunter personally off the hook for any crimes committed over more than a decade and for this question to remain on the form?
Like. Anyway you slice it, this isn’t the solution.
The problem is also that he’s the target of a bunch of right wing conspiracy theories that routinely fall flat under investigation… but Trump is about to put a bunch of lackeys and conspiracy nuts into the Justice system.
Homie could end up going to jail for bullshit just like Putin’s political opponents and their families go to jail in Russia.
Why are you changing the subject?
Do you think we should continue to ignore when people lie on that form?
Or do you think we should remove it, or enforce it?
It’s pretty basic, and once we cover that we might be able to move on.
Enforce, but use context.
He should he treated as any other coke addict that is in court in Delaware and is actively in a recovery program. Meaning, the gun thing should’ve been resolved with a plea deal, community service time and forced attendance of outpatient care / verified recovery meetings.
And the stuff while in the throes of addiction? Similar plan, but with a plan to pay back taxes.
In and out. Resolved in a few months.
So you want “selective enforcement”? That’s what we have now, is your problem a rich and politically connected person was select d instead of a poor minority? Because they’re still be selected for enforcement, and their daddy’s can’t pardon them…
Crack, not coke. There’s a legal distinction.
Biden’s own 1994 Crime bill made a distinction with drastically higher minimum sentences for crack compared to coke.
Or is this also where you think being white, rich, and politically connected over rides that too?
Your problem isn’t with the failures of the justice system, just that it’s hurting the wrong people.
Yes, I think proper sentencing / punishment should be contextual.
If you’re battling a disease that affects your behavior, you should be given leniency if you can prove that you have a care plan in place. Lots of places do this. Some formally, some informally.
Hunter would’ve likely been treated with more leniency if he wasn’t the presidents’ son. I see LOTS of poor and middle class people, on a weekly basis, that have gotten in trouble for similar stuff, and they’ve been able to get right with the court / prosecutor and move on quickly.
I seriously doubt you’ve filled out a 4473. Here’s the question:
"f. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
Yes/No"
I drink beer. Am I an addict? Tell me how to answer this form. You’re also saying no pot smokers should own a gun, even if it’s legal in their jurisdiction.
What if I am addicted to something? How do you propose to A) catch the lie and B) prove that in court?
For all of you who scream, “Enforce the laws!”, take a step back and think who will enforce it against who. I’ll give ya three guesses, but you’re only going to need one.
Nope.
I clearly said:
What wasn’t clear about that to you?