Hunter Biden investigations (from GOP primary thread)

[Spider-Dan]

So photographic and/or video evidence can't be used in conjunction with an admission of guilt to charge people with crimes?

This doesn't even rise to the standard of "evidence."  You have no way to prove what is in that particular pipe, and he obviously isn't smoking it (because he's asleep, as you acknowledge).  And I suspect you know this is true, which is why you dismissed my earlier statement about arresting Joe Rogan, who has FILMED himself doing (what he claimed were) illegal drugs several times, as "word salad" (your go-to phrase any time you run across an argument you can't refute).

In the world you claim we live in, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk would already be under arrest by the feds.

So by your logic, in order to enforce the common sense gun law of crackheads not buying guns, you have to catch the crackhead actually smoking crack while buying a gun?

Wrong.  You keep skipping step 1, which is Hunter Biden would have to be convicted of crack possession.  Presumption of innocence does not magically go out the window when you are accusing someone of a secondary crime.

Now, if you think that picture and some quotes from Hunter are enough to obtain a conviction for possession, by all means, make your case!  But that's not the argument you're making, because you know that argument is dumb and wouldn't even GET to a jury.  Instead, you're arguing that Hunter is obviously so guilty of possession that he doesn't NEED to be convicted so you can magically proceed to a secondary charge.

So to answer your question: the reason why Hunter Biden hasn't been brought up on charges of falsifying his gun application is because FIRST he would need to be convicted of drug possession.

[pondwater]

This doesn't even rise to the standard of "evidence."  You have no way to prove what is in that particular pipe, and he obviously isn't smoking it (because he's asleep, as you acknowledge).  And I suspect you know this is true, which is why you dismissed my earlier statement about arresting Joe Rogan, who has FILMED himself doing (what he claimed were) illegal drugs several times, as "word salad" (your go-to phrase any time you run across an argument you can't refute).

In the world you claim we live in, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk would already be under arrest by the feds.
Wrong.  You keep skipping step 1, which is Hunter Biden would have to be convicted of crack possession.  Presumption of innocence does not magically go out the window when you are accusing someone of a secondary crime.

Now, if you think that picture and some quotes from Hunter are enough to obtain a conviction for possession, by all means, make your case!  But that's not the argument you're making, because you know that argument is dumb and wouldn't even GET to a jury.  Instead, you're arguing that Hunter is obviously so guilty of possession that he doesn't NEED to be convicted so you can magically proceed to a secondary charge.

So to answer your question: the reason why Hunter Biden hasn't been brought up on charges of falsifying his gun application is because FIRST he would need to be convicted of drug possession.

Just FYI, The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. The Justice Dept. and the ATF say that: this ban applies to people who have admitted to using illegal drugs within 12 months before buying a firearm. An admission of drug use/possession does not have to result in a drug arrest to be disqualifying. Read that again, an admission of drug use/possession does not have to result in a drug arrest to be disqualifying.

Hunter Biden admitted to drug use during the period he purchased a firearm. Therefore, he lied on form 4473. It has nothing to do with being convicted of a drug crime.

And in a strange twist, Hunter Biden’s legal team is invoking a recent Supreme Court decision his father has denounced as an affront to “common sense and the Constitution.” His own legal team isn't claiming that he wasn't an illegal drug user when he purchased a firearm. They are claiming that it's unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment to bar drug users from purchasing firearms. So basically Joe Biden wants to ban and restrict firearms for regular law abiding citizens but his son is using the legal defense that it's unconstitutional to ban drug users from firearm purchases. LMFAO, how's that for hypocrisy?

As you may or may not know, there have been recent court rulings that have affirmed a person's constitutional right to buy and own firearms in cases of domestic violence convictions or illegal drug use. However, these cases are still working their way through the courts and according to the ATF domestic violence convictions and illegal drug use currently still disqualify a person from purchasing a firearm.


Given the fact that a domestic violence conviction and/or admission of illegal drug use currently disqualify a person from purchasing a firearm. You either:

1. Support recent court rulings expanding domestic violence/illegal drug users constitutional right under the 2nd amendment to purchase firearms.

2. Don't support the recent court rulings and want more restrictive firearm laws.

Which is it?

[Fau Teixeira]

Hunter Biden’s legal team is invoking a recent Supreme Court decision his father has denounced as an affront to “common sense and the Constitution.” His own legal team isn't claiming that he wasn't an illegal drug user when he purchased a firearm. They are claiming that it's unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment to bar drug users from purchasing firearms.

So is he being prosecuted or not? .. normally you don't have a legal team putting out a specific rebuttal to a charge if there isn't a charge.

[pondwater]

So is he being prosecuted or not? .. normally you don't have a legal team putting out a specific rebuttal to a charge if there isn't a charge.

He has not been charged yet and probably won't be due to his father being POTUS. However, there is sufficient evidence to charge him. He's was an admitted illegal drug user during the time he falsified federal forms to obtain a firearm. There is also photographic evidence corroborating the fact that he was an illegal drug user during that time. According to current law, just the admission by itself disqualified him from purchasing a firearm.

Here's a good explanation from a Washington lawyer.

Meet Hunter Biden. Suddenly a Huge Fan of the Second Amendment

It's going to be fun to watch how this plays out. On one hand, he can challenge the charges as unconstitutional under his 2A rights, which I fully support. But his father and his whole administration fully reject the premises of expanding the 2A rights of gun ownership for felons and illegal drug users.

On the other hand. There's plenty of evidence that he committed a felony under the current established laws that his father and whole administration fully support. And his father could just tell him to take the "L" or to "take one for the team" due to his upcoming run for POTUS.

At the end of the day, it's up to a judge or jury to decide if he's actually guilty. But there's no question that he should be charged. That is of course, if you believe that we are a nation of laws that should be enforced equally.

[Spider-Dan]

Just FYI, The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. The Justice Dept. and the ATF say that: this ban applies to people who have admitted to using illegal drugs within 12 months before buying a firearm.  An admission of drug use/possession does not have to result in a drug arrest to be disqualifying.

Again, let's stipulate that what you are saying is accurate.

When was this admission you speak of?
If the admission did not take place in the 12 months before he purchased the gun, but rather after the gun was already purchased, then what you are saying does not apply.  You do not need a drug possession conviction to simply deny a license, but you would need one to convict someone of criminal falsification of a document.

And it's weird how you, Mr. I Support Enforcing Our Laws, are NOT calling for Hunter Biden to be arrested and charged with possession of illegal drugs.  Your entire premise is that Hunter's drug possession is so clearly obvious that it's a travesty he's not being charged with some secondary crime.  So why not arrest & charge him with that primary crime?  I suspect it's for the same reason you refuse to mention Joe Rogan's name.

[pondwater]

Again, let's stipulate that what you are saying is accurate.

When was this admission you speak of?
If the admission did not take place in the 12 months before he purchased the gun, but rather after the gun was already purchased, then what you are saying does not apply.  You do not need a drug possession conviction to simply deny a license, but you would need one to convict someone of criminal falsification of a document.

Stop with the nonsense. I quickly and clearly answered your questions about Trump. Now answer the questions I asked or take the "L".

Given the fact that a domestic violence conviction and/or admission of illegal drug use currently disqualify a person from purchasing a firearm.

You either:
1. Support recent court rulings expanding domestic violence/illegal drug users constitutional right under the 2nd amendment to purchase firearms.

2. Don't support the recent court rulings and want more restrictive firearm laws.

Which is it?

And also........

1. Was Hunter Biden was taking illegal drugs during the time frame he purchased a firearm? Yes or No?
2. Did Hunter Biden lie about taking illegal drugs on form 4473? Yes or No?

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then he should be charged.

Not to mention, you haven't addressed why his legal team is threatening to use recent court rulings as infringement of his 2nd amendment rights instead of just saying he wasn't on drugs at the time or that he didn't lie on form 4473

And it's weird how you, Mr. I Support Enforcing Our Laws, are NOT calling for Hunter Biden to be arrested and charged with possession of illegal drugs.  Your entire premise is that Hunter's drug possession is so clearly obvious that it's a travesty he's not being charged with some secondary crime.  So why not arrest & charge him with that primary crime?  I suspect it's for the same reason you refuse to mention Joe Rogan's name.

No, what's weird is that you're a radical liberal that supports passing endless radical gun control laws. But yet not enforcing current "common sense" firearm laws on a crackhead that commited a felony and that also happens to be the son of the POTUS and part of the small political spectrum that you support. If you're not willing to enforce current laws, all your proposed firearm laws don't mean anything. At this point I'm convinced that you just come here to troll. Because no mentally sane person can connect the dots that you're trying to connect.

Also, look at the name of the thread? It has nothing to do with Joe Rogan. That's just another weak attempt by you to derail the thread with off topic copypasta.

[Spider-Dan]

You either:
1. Support recent court rulings expanding domestic violence/illegal drug users constitutional right under the 2nd amendment to purchase firearms.

2. Don't support the recent court rulings and want more restrictive firearm laws.

Which is it?

My answer is "I don't care."  Hunter Biden's potential legal strategies are of no relevance to me, especially since he hasn't been indicted.

1. Was Hunter Biden was taking illegal drugs during the time frame he purchased a firearm? Yes or No?
2. Did Hunter Biden lie about taking illegal drugs on form 4473? Yes or No?

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then he should be charged.

Again, wrong: the timeline matters, and the admission was after the application.  As I explained already, you're trying to oversimplify the law so you can invent a crime to charge Hunter with.  But not the crime of drug possession... no, it has to be some other crime so that you can complain about Hunter not being charged without also having to admit that every other person who has admitted illegal drug use should ALSO be charged under the same standard.

Also, look at the name of the thread? It has nothing to do with Joe Rogan. That's just another weak attempt by you to derail the thread with off topic copypasta.

You derailed the GOP primary thread in the first place by diving into Hunter Biden investigations without even attempting to explain how it's relevant to the primary, which caused this thread to be split off.

It's pretty convenient how you can demand indictments for your political opponents, but when you are asked to apply the same standard to your allies, suddenly that's "off-topic."  The level of your commitment to the rule of law is obvious: your only interest is in arresting your political opposition, and everything else is a distraction that must not be discussed.

You want to do a deep dive into Hunter Biden's drug use in a thread about the GOP primary?  Liberal cowards refuse to answer your questions.
You are asked to apply the same criminal standards to your political fellow travelers? Stop derailing!

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Given the fact that a domestic violence conviction and/or admission of illegal drug use currently disqualify a person from purchasing a firearm. You either:

1. Support recent court rulings expanding domestic violence/illegal drug users constitutional right under the 2nd amendment to purchase firearms.

2. Don't support the recent court rulings and want more restrictive firearm laws.

Which is it?

There is actually more than 2 choices.

The question "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"  Is unconstitutionally too broad.    Questions such as "have you ever engaged in domestic violence?" Or "are you a violent person?" would likewise be too broad.    


However, I fully support questions such as "Have you ever been convicted or plead no contest for possession, sale or use of  marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" or  "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?"

The difference in the type of question is the adjudication.  

Any standard of evidence that would allow Hunter to be convicted would also allow Trump to be convicted of sexual assault solely on the basis of the Access Hollywood Tape.  And Trump was not charged based on that tape.  
 

[Spider-Dan]

Any standard of evidence that would allow Hunter to be convicted would also allow Trump to be convicted of sexual assault solely on the basis of the Access Hollywood Tape.  And Trump was not charged based on that tape.

Exactly.

If the "evidence" that Hunter used drugs is his admission to doing so, then Trump's admission to sexual assault means these same people calling for Hunter's arrest today should have been calling for Trump's arrest back in 2016.  Yet for some reason, they were not.  (And for the record: taking a picture of someone with drug paraphernalia while they are in the midst of what you describe as "sleeping" is not even remotely close to evidence they have used drugs.)

[Sunstroke]

Fuck...I had no idea that Hunter Biden was running for office.

What?  He's not?

Who the fuck cares then...

[CF DolFan]

The FBI Director in congressional meetings yesterday basically admitted that they have the 17 recordings of the informant from Ukrainian Natural Gas Company. 15 of Hunter and 2 directly of Joe Biden. The informant has kept them in case anything ever happened and here it is ... happening.  The FBI's only reason for not answering more directly is because "of life and death" issues. Their words. Kind of funny this wasn't big news last night.

[pondwater]

My answer is "I don't care."  Hunter Biden's potential legal strategies are of no relevance to me, especially since he hasn't been indicted.

That's exactly what I thought, LMFAO.....

Again, wrong: the timeline matters, and the admission was after the application.  As I explained already, you're trying to oversimplify the law so you can invent a crime to charge Hunter with.  But not the crime of drug possession... no, it has to be some other crime so that you can complain about Hunter not being charged without also having to admit that every other person who has admitted illegal drug use should ALSO be charged under the same standard.

I didn't invent anything, I'm not in the DOJ so I can't invent a crime or investigation. He's not being investigated for drug use. He's being investigated (by the DOJ, not me) for commiting a felony by lying on form 4473. Just because law enforcement didn't know he was on drugs when he broke the law doesn't mean that he didn't break the law. Jesus christ, going by your logic someone can commit a felony and actually admit to it later. But since they weren't caught red handed at the time, they didn't break the law. I'm pretty confident that's not how it works.

You derailed the GOP primary thread in the first place by diving into Hunter Biden investigations without even attempting to explain how it's relevant to the primary, which caused this thread to be split off.

Excuse me sir, you may want to go back and reread the thread. I didn't bring up Hunter Biden. I was posting in the thread as it unfolded. But since I'm such a good guy I'll accept your apology. Otherwise feel free to go back and delete the previous posts before mine from the people who actually brought up Hunter Biden. Then continue your passive aggressive silliness in an attempt to be "right" at all costs. At this point, I don't really give a shit. There are literally 4 people standing here looking at my monitor laughing at you. You're just here entertaining all of us at this point.

It's pretty convenient how you can demand indictments for your political opponents, but when you are asked to apply the same standard to your allies, suddenly that's "off-topic."  The level of your commitment to the rule of law is obvious: your only interest is in arresting your political opposition, and everything else is a distraction that must not be discussed.

If I may ask, who are my allies that you speak of? You specifically asked me about Trump and I promptly answered. I don't follow Joe Rogan and don't know much about him. I can't answer questions about every fringe wingbat on the internet that you bring up in an attempt to deflect from the actual topic.

You want to do a deep dive into Hunter Biden's drug use in a thread about the GOP primary?  Liberal cowards refuse to answer your questions.
You are asked to apply the same criminal standards to your political fellow travelers? Stop derailing!

Are you high? Who are my political fellow travelers? The current laws should be applied equally for everyone regardless of their political affiliation. Are you happy now? I thought that I've made that abundantly clear a few posts back. Anyhow, you're the one who split the thread off into a new thread that is now about "Hunter Biden". You could have deleted the posts and told everyone to stay on topic. But you didn't because you wanted to sell your snake oil. You're not a very good moderator, you're too emotional and immature to function in that role.

 

[pondwater]

There is actually more than 2 choices.

The question "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"  Is unconstitutionally too broad.    Questions such as "have you ever engaged in domestic violence?" Or "are you a violent person?" would likewise be too broad.    


However, I fully support questions such as "Have you ever been convicted or plead no contest for possession, sale or use of  marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" or  "Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?"

The difference in the type of question is the adjudication.

The wording used in the current law is what should be enforced until it's formally changed.
 

Any standard of evidence that would allow Hunter to be convicted would also allow Trump to be convicted of sexual assault solely on the basis of the Access Hollywood Tape.  And Trump was not charged based on that tape.

That's a false equivalency. Hunter Biden is not being investigated for his admitted drug use. He's being investigated for a more serious crime related to his admitted drug use. 

Also, we're not talking about being convicted. We're talking about being charged. It's irrelevant if Hunter biden is actually convicted. However, he should be charged.

[pondwater]

Fuck...I had no idea that Hunter Biden was running for office.

What?  He's not?

Who the fuck cares then...

But yet here you are.

[Spider-Dan]

Jesus christ, going by your logic someone can commit a felony and actually admit to it later. But since they weren't caught red handed at the time, they didn't break the law. I'm pretty confident that's not how it works.

This is literally how it works.  Otherwise, every musician who bragged about their drug use would be in prison.

Excuse me sir, you may want to go back and reread the thread. I didn't bring up Hunter Biden. I was posting in the thread as it unfolded.

Great suggestion!  I did reread it.  In that 14-page thread about the GOP primary, you have jumped in on two occasions: one post commenting on SS/Medicare/foreign aid funding, and then a bunch of posts 3 months later about Hunter Biden (which were split off into this thread).  At no point have you ever posted in that thread with commentary about the GOP primary; the only participation you have made in that thread are attempts to derail it.

Hope your "friends" are still laughing!

If I may ask, who are my allies that you speak of? You specifically asked me about Trump and I promptly answered. I don't follow Joe Rogan and don't know much about him. I can't answer questions about every fringe wingbat on the internet that you bring up in an attempt to deflect from the actual topic.

And now you're pretending like you're unfamiliar with "fringe wingbat" Joe Rogan, all to avoid the obvious implications of the prosecutorial philosophy you are are advocating.  Let me guess: you also "don't know much about" Elon Musk and won't comment on whether he should be arrested.

And you complain about other people dodging questions.
Every Accusation Is A Confession

Are you high? Who are my political fellow travelers? The current laws should be applied equally for everyone regardless of their political affiliation. Are you happy now?

Your political fellow travelers are "conservatives."  And you're still dodging the question.
Prior to any indictment for lying on a gun permit application, should Hunter Biden first be prosecuted for possession of drugs (along with everyone else who has publicly admitted to crimes), yes or no?

Anyhow, you're the one who split the thread off into a new thread that is now about "Hunter Biden". You could have deleted the posts and told everyone to stay on topic. But you didn't because you wanted to sell your snake oil. You're not a very good moderator, you're too emotional and immature to function in that role.

If I understand your objection correctly, you believe that I should have simply deleted all the posts in this thread as "off-topic."  And you think such action would have reflected... more maturity than splitting them off for further discussion.

Duly noted.  I will keep this advice in mind for any future moderation decisions of your posts.