Jury Finds Hunter Biden Guilty
[guest post by Dana]
A jury in Delaware has found Hunter Biden guilty on three felony gun charges.
Hunter Biden was charged in federal court in Wilmington with three felony counts tied to possession of a gun while using narcotics. He had pleaded not guilty.
Two of the counts carry maximum prison sentences of 10 years, while the third has a maximum of five years. Each count also carries a maximum fine of $250,000.
Judge Noreika hasn’t set a sentencing date yet.
I haven’t followed this matter too closely but prominent Republicans have been very vocal about it. Here are some of their responses to the verdict:
🚨STATEMENT🚨
Hunter Biden’s sweetheart plea deal was smoked out after scrutiny by a federal judge. Today’s verdict is a step toward accountability but until the Department of Justice investigates everyone involved in the Bidens’ corrupt influence peddling schemes that generated…
— Rep. James Comer (@RepJamesComer) June 11, 2024
The Biden Crime Family sold “the brand” and access to “the Big Guy” to line their pockets beyond their wildest dreams, all at the expense of the American people and national security.
The only reason they convicted Hunter on 3 counts, in comparison with President Trump’s… pic.twitter.com/0F4EHugdJj
— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) June 11, 2024
My statement on Hunter Biden's guilty verdict:
“Remember this was Joe Biden’s corrupt DOJ that tried to negotiate outside immunity unrelated to this case. Today is the first step in delivering accountability for the Biden Crime Family. We must and will continue to investigate…
— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) June 11, 2024
And here is President Biden’s statement:
This statement from @JoeBiden is powerful in its grace and integrity: pic.twitter.com/ADTWifQWFr
— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) June 11, 2024
—-Dana
Hello.
Dana (615346) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:33 amHe is unlikely to get time. Probation conditioned on remaining clean and sober.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:40 amGood. Based on what I’ve read he seemed guilty.
Time123 (57e29b) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:47 amThe judge disliked the way the original plea deal was written, and asked a question about its scope (did it block all additional charges from the period in question?) and the prosecutors said no and the defense said it did.
So she threw it out and said start over. At that point Weiss was given special counsel status to avoid criticisms that “the DoJ” was forcing Weiss to cave.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:51 amHunter still faces 9 tax charges, 3 of which are felonies.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:53 amI look forward to the MAGA activists insisting that the trial of Hunter was just and shows how Joe is irredeemably corrupt, while insisting that the trial of the Donald was unjust and says nothing at all about his character.
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:55 amMy take on this is that Hunter would have gotten a reasonable plea deal if “the DoJ” hadn’t tried so hard to stack the deck in his favor.
(I say “the DoJ” because, as we all know, it is strictly independent and for, say, Biden to try to influence them would be obstruction.)
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:56 amI look forward to the MAGA activists insisting that the trial of Hunter was just and shows how Joe is irredeemably corrupt, while insisting that the trial of the Donald was unjust and says nothing at all about his character.
And I look for Biden’s camp to say just about the opposite. Do not for a second think that Trump has a corner on dishonesty in politics.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:57 amI think it’s a reasonable proposition that we don’t generally hold the sins of the sons against the fathers, so I don’t see this as a situation of hypocrisy or dishonesty on the left.
If you want to point to leftist hypocrisy or dishonesty here, it lies in ignoring Hunter while attacking Ginny Thomas and Martha Alito. Although even then I think there’s a stronger case for holding the sins of the spouse against the other spouse than there is for holding the sins of the sons against the fathers.
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:09 amSurprisingly, I wasn’t my usual jaundiced self in that I sort of expected the Delaware jury to reach what certainly sounded like the only rational decision in the matter. I even made that prediction on an NRO post last night in a reply to a comment suggesting that the fix was in and a pro-Biden juror would vote to acquit.
But I agree with Kevin M. that the fact that the Justice Department initially wanted to give Mr. R. H. Biden such a sweetheart deal is scandalous. I remind everyone too that this deal also would likely have indemnified Hunter from any crimes committed prior to 2021, even those which have not yet emerged. I continue to believe that this exposes a frightening degree of rot in the Washington establishment, and if not for the heroism of Judge Maryellen Noreika who smelled a rat and called it out, Hunter’s probationary period would probably be set to expire fairly soon.
This was a just outcome, but it doesn’t undo the idea that there is a great deal wrong in the United States Department of Justice.
JVW (ae9999) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:14 amI think it’s a reasonable proposition that we don’t generally hold the sins of the sons against the fathers, so I don’t see this as a situation of hypocrisy or dishonesty on the left.
I agree with that, but, as noted in my comment immediate preceding this one, I think the ridiculous deal that daddy’s Justice Department offered the wayward boy is scandalous, and exposes some deep, deep problems in the Washington establishment.
If Trump wins in November, this sort of thing will be a clear reason why.
JVW (0b1b9c) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:16 am> If Trump wins in November, this sort of thing will be a clear reason why.
Which is hilarious, because a DOJ staffed with Trunk apparatchiks will be *substantially worse* in this regard.
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:17 amIt wasn’t what I think you would technically call a plea bargain, because it was a diversion from prosecution that would have left Hunter Biden, had he successfully complied with its terms, without a criminal record.
Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:26 amWhich is hilarious, because a DOJ staffed with Trunk apparatchiks will be *substantially worse* in this regard.
Yeah, probably. We’re in a really rough place.
I have this dream that if Trump wins and the GOP takes the Senate, then Republican Senators will band together and tell Trump that he can’t have his stalwarts in key administrative positions, at least those which require Senate approval.
I also have this dream that if Biden wins, the GOP will at least seize control of the Senate and they will band together and tell Biden that he cannot fill his cabinet with the usual collection of wild-eyed activists and useless party hacks.
If Trump wins and the Dems maintain or even expand control of the Senate, then I’m confident they will block Trump’s worst appointees.
If Biden wins and the Dems maintain or even expand control of the Senate, I have zero confidence they will moderate Biden’s worst inclinations and I am certain we will end up with a cabinet chock-full of wild-eyed activists and useless party hacks.
JVW (821699) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:31 am> I have this dream that if Trump wins and the GOP takes the Senate, then Republican Senators will band together and tell Trump that he can’t have his stalwarts in key administrative positions, at least those which require Senate approval.
I see no realistic possibility of more than one or two Republican politicians standing up to Trump on *any* issue.
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:33 amAs I shared yesterday, there are some in the gun rights community who believe that the federal ban of certain persons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional (under Bruen), and there have been lower court rulings agreeing with them; see the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in US v. Daniels, a marijuana possession case.
And the Third Circuit decided, in Range v. Attorney General, that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it unlawful for felons to possess firearms, was unconstitutional as applied to a defendant whose past felony was a nonviolent fraud offense.
The Supreme Court has yet to decide a case (United States v. Rahimi) challenging the ban on persons with domestic violence restraining orders; the government has appealed the decisions in Daniels and Range to the Supreme Court.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:42 amI see no realistic possibility of more than one or two Republican politicians standing up to Trump on *any* issue.
You may be right, but if the GOP only has 51 or 52 votes, it would only take three or so stalwarts to thwart what he wants to do. Three stalwarts with enough courage to play the Krysten Sinema/Joe Manchin role in terms of filling the cabinet.
Maybe the Senate needs to adopt a rule whereby the Attorney General needs to be approved by at least 60 Senators. That might help restore confidence in the job.
JVW (6e7121) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:45 am> Three stalwarts with enough courage to play the Krysten Sinema/Joe Manchin role in terms of filling the cabinet.
and to guarantee that Trump will turn on them and rally their base to throw them out of office at the earliest opportunity.
Who is going to take that risk?
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:46 amAs I shared yesterday, there are some in the gun rights community who believe that the federal ban of certain persons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional (under Bruen), and there have been lower court rulings agreeing with them. . .
I would guess that the last thing the Biden Family would want to see at this point is Hunter appealing this verdict. At least not until after the election is past us anyway.
Question for commenters here: Does Hunter now have to lie low and disappear from public view for the rest of the campaign season, or given Trump’s issues will the independent voter accept the idea of Hunter appearing alongside of his father at campaign events?
I could see the GOP countering the Dems focus on Trump’s legal travails by putting out an ad showing Biden father and son standing side-by-side and captioning it with something like “Felons: convicted and unindicted.”
JVW (9ed7b2) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:49 amaphrael (#9)
In the case of Ginni Thomas, the reason to eyeball her doings is just to follow the money, because Clarence benefits from the cash she brings in. That family unit has “appearence of impropriety” written all over it.
The more I hear (today’s Alito story, for example), the more I think that Alito is right in saying his wife has a thing about flags and that he has limited control over it. Wierd, but not the sort of thing that should drive a recusal.
JVW (#15)
The GOP will not resist Trump. The way to power in today’s GOP is to not resist him. Best result is that Trump loses and the GOP gets 51 in the Senate.
Appalled (cd95cc) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:52 amSee also US v. Jared Michael Harrison, where a District Court in Oklahoma said:
L
Or US v. Paola Connelly:
All of these cases, including Daniels and Range, are waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rahimi.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:52 amGiven how long the federal appeals process is, any decision would be after the election anyways. But I have no doubt he will appeal.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:54 amWho is going to take that risk?
Perhaps a retiring Senator who is an institutionalist and is a strong candidate for retiring such as a Chuck Grassley, Deb Fischer, or Jim Risch, or even a maverick like a Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins.
JVW (9bcc90) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:54 amI don’t think Hunter will be at any campaign events.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:55 amGiven how long the federal appeals process is, any decision would be after the election anyways.
I don’t think they would want the appeal to be filed before the election, because it undermines their argument that Donald Trump needs to take his medicine and be held accountable for his transgressions.
JVW (86383f) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:56 amI think it was CNN who noted that Hunter’s sentencing would usually come 120 days from the verdict, which would put it right up around October 10, just four weeks from the election. That can’t be good timing for the Biden campaign.
JVW (da670f) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:57 amLOL! Trump doesn’t necessarily need Senate approval, he could appoint his apparatchiks in an “acting capacity.”
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:58 amNeither Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski have proven themselves sufficiently loyal to Trump, since they both voted to impeach him.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:04 amTrump doesn’t necessarily need Senate approval, he could appoint his apparatchiks in an “acting capacity.”
Which is another Executive abuse, beloved by Barack Obama among others, which Congress is long overdue to fix.
I swear, no matter which of the two idiots wins this November, if the Legislative Branch doesn’t start to claw back power from the Executive Branch then I think we just keep floating around in our current political miasma until China (or Mexico) finally conquers us.
JVW (9c4ee0) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:04 am@26 my recollection is that Biden stated Trump’s appeal is part of our legal processes, not that he should not appeal, and then if the verdict is upheld that he should “take his medicine and be held accountable for his transgressions”.
Sam G (4e6c22) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:05 amI don’t think Hunter will be at any campaign events.
I think that consultants will strongly warn the President against having Hunter at any campaign events, but I’ve come to marvel at the sheer weirdness of the Biden family and their inability to decouple family and politics. Won’t surprise me at all if Hunter makes an appearance from time to time. What else does he have to do, and perhaps Joe and Jill figure that it’s easier to keep him on the straight-and-narrow if they continually have them by their side.
JVW (f9437d) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:08 amso I don’t see this as a situation of hypocrisy or dishonesty on the left.
OF course you don’t. You probably also don’t see this as what happens when the boss uses a heavy hand to help his son and gets caught at it,.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:09 am> OF course you don’t.
So you’re saying we *should* hold the sins of the children against the parents, as a categorical rule?
Because what you’re suggesting is that it’s clearly my bias that causes me to think that holding the criminal conviction of an individual against them is different from holding the criminal conviction of a person’s son against that person.
So to you they’re the same thing, and they should be?
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:13 amAs I shared yesterday, there are some in the gun rights community who believe that the federal ban of certain persons from possessing firearms is unconstitutional (under Bruen), and there have been lower court rulings agreeing with them; see the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in US v. Daniels, a marijuana possession case.
Yeah, sure. Embezzlers or tax cheats. But there is adequate reason to keep guns out of the hands of drug addicts. Not only is there the whole diminished capacity argument, there is also the tendency of drug addicts to do desperate things to get more drugs.
Probably a good argument for alcoholics as well, but that is a line with no clear demarcation among millions of habitual drinkers.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:16 am#30
Congress is usually content to cede power to the Excecutive, because then they are not responsible for anything. I see a lot of writing about how the system the founders created is strong (and can resist Trump), but the people who administer things distort the system pretty easily, and bad things result.
Appalled (cd95cc) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:16 amI see no realistic possibility of more than one or two Republican politicians standing up to Trump on *any* issue.
SEVEN Republicans voted to convict Trump in 2021 and several of those will be in the Senate in 2025, as will some who are not beholden to Trump in this year’s election. As we have seen, no Democrat Senator — ever — has voted to convict a Democrat president or cabinet member, so your high moral ground is suspect.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:19 amor even a maverick like a Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins.
Both of whom voted “guilty” in 2021 and are unlikely every to get off his sh1t list.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:20 amNot too surprised by the verdict….though it remains bizarre that this case made it to trial. It’s dysfunctional that a reasonable deal couldn’t have been struck. It’s almost like there should have been a mediator draft up a compromise that was fair. Though, I’m almost more bothered by how the wife got rid of the gun…not that she needs to be charged.
I doubt that this case or the tax case merits prison, but like Trump, there’s karma at play here. The bulk of the public evidence about Hunter is that he’s been out of control and living a life without account. Certainly he’s had a few years now being publicly humiliated and the feature story of one cable news network. He’s pathetic but not exactly Al Capone. There’s got to be some sympathy for someone hounded by addiction.
AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:21 amFamily members of Presidents trade on their family name in legal ways (W and Hillary) and illegal ways (we can fight about that all day — lets stipulate Billy Carter). It’s not healthy, but the correction is limiting the power and importance of government, not through stupid political name and shaming, or nonsensical or salacious accusations.
Appalled (cd95cc) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:23 amnot the sort of thing that should drive a recusal.
A recusal at the SC, which cannot assign a substitute, should only happen when there is a clear risk that the judge is influenced against his normal predilection.
These recent recusal arguments are not about Thomas or Alito voting to satisfy an outside interest, but because their quite predictable and uninfluenced vote does not satisfy the interests of the accusers.
And if you don’t like their accusations, they’ll dig up more.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:25 amKevin M — Find me the Democratic president who launched an attempted coup…
I wouldn’t mind, though, an alternate universe where Bill Clinton resigned in 1998.
Appalled (cd95cc) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:26 am> so your high moral ground is suspect.
it’s not an issue of high moral ground, it’s an issue of absolute terror for the future of the nation.
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:27 am> uninfluenced vote
isn’t that the entire question under dispute, whether or not (or to what degree) their vote was influenced?
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:28 amAnd a big part of what’s driving my distrust of Republican politicians is that for nine years, Trump has run over what would historically have been bright red lines that conservatives would traditionally have protected at all costs, and … it’s had no effect on his support whatsoever.
Why should I trust the Senate to draw a line on anything when they wouldn’t draw a line against openly trying to steal an election while lying about the other side trying to do it?
Trump’s behavior in the winter of 2020-2021, and the party’s response to it, revealed the clear truth: there is *no* line Trump could cross where the party would not follow him.
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:31 amWho is going to take that risk?
Good luck throwing Lisa Murkowski out of office. Palin’s candidate beat her in the GOP primary in 2010, so she ran a write-in campaign against both parties and won.
Much the same for Susan Collins in Maine (not a Trumpist hotbed).
But sure, Rubio or Cruz live and die on Trump’s whim. But there is a limit to what some Senators will put up with. Again, 7 voted to convict in 2021 and more might have if it was going to work. It took guts for those 7 to make a purely Quixotic vote.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:32 amFamily members of Presidents trade on their family name in legal ways (W and Hillary) and illegal ways (we can fight about that all day — lets stipulate Billy Carter). It’s not healthy, but the correction is limiting the power and importance of government, not through stupid political name and shaming, or nonsensical or salacious accusations.
Those family members who make their living as parasites on the Great Man do so at the risk of being collateral damage when the Great Man comes under fire. What happened to Hunter, and what might happen to Don Jr, would not be proper if applied to Barron or Tiffany.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:36 amWhy should I trust the Senate to draw a line on anything when they wouldn’t draw a line against openly trying to steal an election while lying about the other side trying to do it?
2021: 7 GOP votes to convict.
1999: 0 Democrats to convict for proven perjury and witness tampering charges.
Again, your moral high ground is suspect.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:39 amKevin M — Find me the Democratic president who launched an attempted coup…
FDR came close, both with court packing and his many attacks on the Constitution, some of which succeeded (e.g. Wickard).
Trump’s attempt was ugly, but could never have succeeded, even if Pence had gone along. Calling it an attempted coup is an overreach. It was a sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:44 amAs you can see from my posts 17 & 22, I am less concerned about Hunter Biden’s criminal case (I really don’t care) than about the state of the Second Amendment. The fact that certain classes of Americans are banned from possessing firearms, without regard to specific circumstances, is more of an affront than anything Hunter Biden (or Donald Trump, who will lose his concealed carry permit) has done.
The best hope is that the Supreme Court rules in Rahimi or in any of other cases I noted, that the government cannot ban persons, absent a violent felony, from possessing firearms. As Bruen stated, the government needs to demonstrate that firearm regulations have a historical tradition in American history. These bans have no such tradition, as they are relatively recent, dating back to 1968.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:45 am#47
The case of Hunter Biden is troubling. He’s profiteering on the idea his kinship to Joe gives him influence, and Pop never told him to cut it out. I seriously know of no law that you can apply to stop that. Don’t expect Joe (or Don) to get up on a dias and say “Don’t expect favors from me because you pay my kids lots of money. In fact, you retain him for anything, I will not listen to him or follow his advice.”
Appalled (cd95cc) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:45 amHad J6 been an actual coup attempt, Trump would have been charged with insurrection, if not treason (an armed coup is war against the United States). I think they got it right with the fraud/attempted fraud charges.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:45 amRip, do you think that a diagnosed schizophrenic should be allowed guns? How about a heroin addict? (if you had met any you’d say no, trust me).
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:48 am> 2021: 7 GOP votes to convict.
> 1999: 0 Democrats to convict for proven perjury and witness tampering charges.
Because Clinton’s crimes (and note that I reluctantly *supported* impeachment at the time) and Trump’s crimes are equivalent, absolutely. Lying about a blowjob and trying to steal an election are both legally and morally equivalent.
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:49 amisn’t that the entire question under dispute, whether or not (or to what degree) their vote was influenced?
No. The accusers actual concern is their quite predictable, uninfluenced, vote.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:50 amit’s not an issue of high moral ground, it’s an issue of absolute terror for the future of the nation.
Question: How do you view the current direction of the country under Biden?
Satisfied or dissatisfied? Wanting more of the same?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 10:52 am> Question: How do you view the current direction of the country under Biden?
meh. it’s … neither great nor terrible. kinda middling. could be better, could be worse.
> absolute terror for the future of the nation.
the bad things about the Biden presidency are within the normal range of bad; the bad things about a future Trump presidency are things that will undermine the very structure and fabric of the republic in ways that we will not recover from for generations, if ever.
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 11:11 am“It sucks” has a 40% lead over “It’s good”
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 11:31 amAnd the question is so general as to be meaningless, as it doesn’t provide any info about what is thought to be wrong directionally
Sam G (4e6c22) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:08 pmI’ll still take the guy who is not unhinged to have his finger anywhere near the nuclear button….or the other implements of power including the Department of Justice.
Why toy with yet another impeachable offense and hope the damage is somehow constrained….and trust that Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio will do the right thing? All of these people are currently vouching for Trump — Essentially telling us not to worry. Does human nature and history suggest they will admit that they were wrong?
Can we be sure that there won’t be an acting attorney general Jeffrey Clark…or an acting Secretary of Defense Michael Flynn. Uncertainty begs a conservative response….
AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:19 pmI’ve added some more Republican reactions to the news.
Dana (3541ab) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:23 pmBiden’s current Cabinet is bad enough to be pointing fingers at bogeymen. Yes, Trump is a radical not a conservative. At some point though we’ll need a radical since the status quo is unworkable and mild revisions won’t cut it and 4 more years of dead man walking (assuming he can still do that) will make the situation still less tenable.
The choice we are offered is terrible. But it is a choice. I am not convinced that Biden’s inaction, with a side of doubling down on failure and a backup plan of a ninny, isn’t worse.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:29 pmTrump’s J6 behavior was terrible, but it has been discounted already. Everyone who has made up their mind, or is still undecided, has including that in their thinking. I’m certain that if Biden relies on that as an argument going forward it will change no minds. It’s tiring here, too.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:33 pmaphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:33 am
Three or four is more likely, and so few only on issues where he goes to the public.
Sammy Finkelman (c2c77e) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:34 pmI’ve added some more Republican reactions to the news.
For whackjob values of “Republican” anyway. How about reactions from abnormal Democrats, too. Maxine Waters and Ilhan Omar, for example.
I’m far more interested in what Mitch or Mitt have to say.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:34 pmMaybe because I’m irreparably so cynical…
But, these prosecutors tried to sneak an unusual, very generous plea deal that this judge prevented.
Then, they turned around and conducted a balls-to-the-walls prosecution because they had Hunter dead to rights of those charges.
My question: if the prosecution was animated to try to push the original sweet heart deal through… what’s stopping the prosecution from purposely tanking their own case? Do judges frown upon that? Could prosecution team be sanctioned if judge believes they’re throwing the case on purpose?
whembly (86df54) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:35 pmIt’s also pretty similar to what Kamala Harris says about Trump’s conviction.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:37 pmCould prosecution team be sanctioned if judge believes they’re throwing the case on purpose?
Pretty sure they could get disbarred for that.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:38 pmLeave it to the chief troll to bring in the perfect level of snark:
NRO has been running items written as straight news but which are highly implausible and can only be seen as parody by a “Humor” tag appended to the top of the page. This one does not have that tag.
JVW (7ffd10) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:42 pmCattagio today:
Many Americans view the choice before them this fall as a choice between the two episodes in Lafayette Square. They can have a lowbrow authoritarian swinging a cross of gold at his enemies like a truncheon or they can have anomic left-wing miscreants spray-painting “F–S 4 HAMAS” on portraits of George Washington with impunity.
Is that the choice before us?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:50 pm“I’m certain that if Biden relies on that as an argument going forward it will change no minds. It’s tiring here, too.”
I’ve not seen one J6 campaign commercial yet. The images of that day are shocking. The inaction by Trump confounding. We’ll see if it’s already priced in. Few independents want a President who can’t comprehend that he needed to call that riot off.
AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:53 pmThe guilty verdicts were inevitable given the evidence. As were the responses from the usual suspects. Other than inevitability, there is no similarity. The law judged, ducks quacked.
nk (197cf8) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:55 pm“For whackjob values of “Republican” anyway.”
Stefanik is a “whackjob”? She’s in the #3 GOP leadership position in the House and she says this: “Today is the first step in delivering accountability for the Biden Crime Family.” Really?!
AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 6/11/2024 @ 12:59 pm> They can have a lowbrow authoritarian swinging a cross of gold at his enemies like a truncheon or they can have anomic left-wing miscreants spray-painting “F–S 4 HAMAS” on portraits of George Washington with impunity.
One is disrespectful, irritating, and unpleasant, and the other is a long term threat to the integrity of the republic.
It’s clearly a hard choice.
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 1:10 pm> It’s also pretty similar to what Kamala Harris says about Trump’s conviction.
Again, there’s a difference between “person A’s conviction shows that person A is a bad guy” and “person A’s conviction shows that person A’s father is a bad guy”.
aphrael (99fd6b) — 6/11/2024 @ 1:11 pmYou’d be laughed out of the writing room for a hit political drama…
https://www.c-span.org/video/?536297-1/presidentbiden-speaks-gun-violence-prevention-conference
…on the same day his son’s conviction.
whembly (86df54) — 6/11/2024 @ 1:22 pmThey should be prohibited only if they are a threat to themselves or the public. The problem is that under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) there is no individual determination allowed, the law is simply a blanket ban. The felony drunk driver, who is certainly a danger to themselves and others, is treated the same way as the occasional marijuana smoker. Someone could be a “diagnosed schizophrenic” whose symptoms have been treated with drugs and therapy for a decade, and has been able to function in society, would still be banned from possessing firearms if they spent any time, no matter how far in the past, in a mental hospital. The same applies to the ex-heroin addict-they could have stopped taking drugs for decades but still would be banned for life.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 1:26 pmToo early. Wait until September.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 1:30 pmOne is disrespectful, irritating, and unpleasant, and the other is a long term threat to the integrity of the republic.
Well, “swinging a cross of gold at his enemies like a truncheon” I am pretty sure is not to be taken literally.
Both the rabid pro-Trump side and the hardcore leftists (which I guess we can consider the anti-Trump side since hardly anyone can be truly considered to be “pro-Biden”) are a threat to our country. My biggest concern is that our existing institutions, especially those which wield influence, are predisposed to aggressively go after the pro-Trump side while at the same time minimizing or outright excusing the damage done by the anti-Trump side. It’s this imbalance which concerns me the most.
As to today’s example, in my comments I have continually been harping not about Hunter Biden’s sordid lifestyle, but the fact that the United States Department of Justice, overseen by President Joseph R. Biden, appears to have originally worked out a plea deal for the First Son which had very unusual terms ridiculously favorable to the accused.
That’s the scandal, and it’s the sort of inside dealing that we have seen far too much of. Democrats and progressives continue advocating making government agencies more powerful and granting them more authority to regulate our lives, but at the same time it seems that these agencies are continually held less and less accountable for their own bad behavior. That needs to change.
JVW (68e943) — 6/11/2024 @ 2:06 pmIt is satisfying to see powerful politicians and their families held legally accountable when they do illegal things, primarily because they seem to avoid accountability more than average folks.
DRJ (f65e25) — 6/11/2024 @ 3:00 pmRip,
There are positions between “non-violent felons can have a gun” and the current law. Perhaps you can’t see a difference between an occasional pot smoke and a heroin addict, but I can. And shortly pot will not be a on that schedule anyway. And if the rule is limited to violent felons, a 5-time busted crack addict would still get his gun even though it doesn’t pass the laugh test.
The same applies to the ex-heroin addict-they could have stopped taking drugs for decades but still would be banned for life
I don’t find that part in the law. “who is an unlawful user of or [is] addicted” does not read like a lifetime ban. At least not if they haven’t been convicted of a felony or domestic violence.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 3:03 pmNow, HUNTER may have a case for recovering his gun rights if he can show (SHOW!) that he has been free of his addiction for some time. Since he’s now a convicted felon, the burden is on him, not the state even if the general ban on felons is reformed.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 3:06 pmIt is satisfying to see powerful politicians and their families held legally accountable when they do illegal things, primarily because they seem to avoid accountability more than average folks.
Moreso after their family tried to bend the rules.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 3:07 pmThat’s the scandal, and it’s the sort of inside dealing that we have seen far too much of. Democrats and progressives continue advocating making government agencies more powerful and granting them more authority to regulate our lives, but at the same time it seems that these agencies are continually held less and less accountable for their own bad behavior. That needs to change.
Which is why I feel that allowing these powerful agencies to become institutionally aligned with the Left is a real bad thing. Currently we have a spoils system at the very top, but it does not reach down to all the policy positions. It should. Conversely, we need laws regarding obstruction that also reach down to these levels.
In the Hunter Biden case, I don’t think that Biden called up Weiss on the phone and dictated an approach, or even that he worked through intermediaries. Instead, I think that the lower level policy-makers knew what was wanted without being asked. There’s a USA or AUSA or Deputy Assistant Undersecretary that needs to be hauled up on charges. Not that that will happen. Instead Hunter will reap the consequences.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 3:15 pmIt’s a weaponized DOJ!
Paul Montagu (6a638f) — 6/11/2024 @ 3:42 pmOh, nevermind.
The jury had no choice. Hunter practically gave them the evidence.
Fortunately for hunter our system is mercy and forgiveness for those at the top and law and order for those on the bottom. When liberal prosecutors try to dispense a little mercy and forgiveness for those at the bottom the people at the top want them recalled. That why white people were so angry with o.j. simpson verdict. The system was supposed to keep rich white people out of jail and put poor black people in jail. O.j. gamed the system by being black but rich? See sunny von bulow case where whites cheered when he got off. As o.j. said aint america great you can get all the justice you can afford! Remember they tried to sneak a sweatheart plea deal for hunter until publicity about it.
asset (7b2a5a) — 6/11/2024 @ 3:43 pmKevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 3:03 pm
Although an addict or user must have violated the law numerous times, nothing counts as a permanent ban until convicted (when he might become a felon and prohibited from owning a gun for that reason.)
Hunter Biden’s whole defense was that, at the moment he signed that form, he did not consider himself a drug user, even if objectively you had to say that he was, if the idea of being “an unlawful user of drugs” a drug user has any meaning.. He might more legitimately quibble about being an “addict”, which really applies to opioids like heroin.
Hunter Biden quit in 2019 around the time they began adding other drugs to cocaine. (fentanyl is said to have started being widely substituted for heroin in 2017)
People can die right after taking cocaine but mostly if they have a genetic defect in processing it and they die the first time they take it. Cocaine also ages and damages the heart. And the brain.
And it is addictive – except that the person is addicted to his own dopamine which is forced out. Maintenance is not safe, unlike the case with opioids.
A lot of evidence went into how frequently and recently and immediately afterwards he (probably) used cocaine.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 6/11/2024 @ 3:51 pmIn the Hunter Biden case, I don’t think that Biden called up Weiss on the phone and dictated an approach, or even that he worked through intermediaries. Instead, I think that the lower level policy-makers knew what was wanted without being asked.
Agreed. By the same token, Bill Clinton never had to tell his 1996 reelection campaign to go out and raise illegal money from sketchy foreign sources. It was just understood that this was what needed to be done in order to ensure their man won. Thus, when the country found out about Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung, Bubba could just shrug his shoulders and honestly say that he never told anybody in his campaign to seek out illegal donations.
JVW (fea34e) — 6/11/2024 @ 4:12 pmJVW (fea34e) — 6/11/2024 @ 4:12 pm
That we don’t know.
There had to be some supervision by somebody competent to minimize the risk of getting caught.
Janet Reno appointed a lot of special prosecutors but not for campaign finance violations.
With Biden it’s more of a machine.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 6/11/2024 @ 4:36 pmJVW, wasn’t Weiss appointed by Trump? At what point can we assume that the ppl appointed by the previous administration are making at least a good faith effort to execute this investigation?
Time123 (c778a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 4:38 pmBill Clinton I think deliberately involved Vice President Al Gore in making questionable fundraising calls in the White House in order to help ensure his loyalty.
Sammy Finkelman (e4ef09) — 6/11/2024 @ 4:39 pmJVW, wasn’t Weiss appointed by Trump? At what point can we assume that the ppl appointed by the previous administration are making at least a good faith effort to execute this investigation?
Weiss was appointed by Trump and supported by both of Delaware’s Democrat Senators. I don’t believe that Weiss is a scheming Democrat who looked for ways to aid the Biden campaign; instead I think he’s an ineffectual bureaucrat who was too weak to stand up to the bureaucracy when they put obstacles in the way of his investigation. And I think that pretty much all of Washington operates that way, go along to get along. (For what it’s worth, so does corporate America.) And, as Kevin M points out, since the permanent Washington bureaucracy is pretty much suffused with left-leaning types, this means that in general Democrats tend to get favorable treatment. I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.
JVW (150007) — 6/11/2024 @ 4:51 pm<blockquote>There are positions between “non-violent felons can have a gun” and the current law. Perhaps you can’t see a difference between an occasional pot smoke and a heroin addict, but I can.
The question isn’t whether someone can see the difference between a pot smoker or a heroin addict, the question is whether, under the Bruen standard of gun regulations being “firmly rooted in our nation’s history and tradition,” these bans are constitutional. As I noted above, there have been a number of court decisions that say the ban is unconstitutional, including the Third and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal. For example, in US v. Daniels, the Fifth Circuit reversed his conviction for possession of firearms and marijuana joints, for which he was sentenced to nearly 4 years:
Source
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/11/2024 @ 5:24 pmLike many gun regulations, the ban on gun ownership by habitual drug users is generally good policy but unconstitutional if we read the second amendment as an individual, rather than collective militia, right.
Since we’ve decided to treat the second amendment as protecting an individual right — a decision I disagreed with! — we need to follow up and remove all of the unconstitutional rules, for two reasons:
* allowing them as to the second amendment creates precedent for allowing similar restrictions on other fundamental rights, including the first amendment
* removing them will encourage a push for an amendment to allow them.
aphrael (1797ab) — 6/11/2024 @ 5:35 pmhttps://mxmnews.com/article/9adf1a37-ef48-4403-9c77-e20c5eab6802
Ho hum. Nothing to see here. Just Speaker Pelosi admitting she was responsible on Jan 6th.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 6/11/2024 @ 6:27 pmWhere’s the evidence that there was “pressure” put on this Trump-appointed prosecutor to agree to a sweetheart deal? Is this one of those, I know it when I see it deals?
What’s the appropriate outcome for a first-time non-violent gun charge….where the individual only possessed the weapon for 11 days? I would think that built into being an addict is not thinking clearly. It’s not like he was running guns or sticking up gas stations for crack money.
What’s the appropriate outcome for a tax charge where the tax bill, interest, and fines are paid in full? Yes, yes with a lot of help from a family “friend” but we’re not exactly talking Wesley Snipes here. If Snipes got 3 years and served 28 months, what’s reasonable for old Hunter whose liability was about 1/5 as big?
Personally I’d give him 6mos in prison for the tax charges and diversion for the gun charge. Maybe he serves half of that. Now how does prison work for a President’s son? Does the secret service go in with him…or do we devolve to house arrest…or probation?
There’s a lot of inuendo here….but is the plea deal really a corruption of justice? I agree that the tax matter is not…what’s the word….piss-ant, but taking in the totality of facts and logistics….what is a reasonable sentence? I’m not hearing much here except that the DoJ is currupt? Not much evidence of that though.
AJ_Liberty (c149da) — 6/11/2024 @ 7:25 pmLaw and order! Now lets check every n.r.a. member’s records. It could help biden in november if enough n.r.a. members are in the slammer. Stake out gun stores and shows and have the paddy wagons at the ready.
asset (6008c2) — 6/11/2024 @ 7:47 pmHe might more legitimately quibble about being an “addict”, which really applies to opioids like heroin.
He might quibble about being an addict, just as heavy habitual drinkers deny they are alcoholics, but that doesn’t depend on what drug is being used. I effing guarantee you that addiction to crack, or cocaine, or meth, or pills is not only possible, it is common. Even pot addiction happens. It’s even a stereotype. Cheech & Chong made a career out of it.
Here is a modern definition of addiction: persisting in using a substance in the face of known, adverse consequences. It’s why people fail scheduled drug tests they’ve know about for a week.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 7:52 pmAnd it is addictive – except that the person is addicted to his own dopamine which is forced out. Maintenance is not safe, unlike the case with opioids.
Sammy, and I say this with as much kindness as I can muster: You don’t know the first thing about this subject, and be glad you don’t. The physical addiction, which differs from substance to substance is almost unimportant. People go into detox, have their system thoroughly cleaned out and they are loaded again before the sun sets on the day they get out. It’s mostly behavioral, not physical, and this is why most rehab stints fail to succeed.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 7:57 pmLike many gun regulations, the ban on gun ownership by habitual drug users is generally good policy but unconstitutional if we read the second amendment as an individual, rather than collective militia, right.
Why? Modern gun laws depend on an individual’s behavior. Law abiding, responsible people. The felony thing is one measure of that. People argue that it is too blunt an instrument, but the idea that it is based on is still valid.
The militia thing, OTOH, was used as a way to disarm blacks after Reconstruction. Guess who wasn’t allowed in the militia.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:02 pmThere’s a lot of inuendo here….but is the plea deal really a corruption of justice? I agree that the tax matter is not…what’s the word….piss-ant, but taking in the totality of facts and logistics….what is a reasonable sentence? I’m not hearing much here except that the DoJ is currupt? Not much evidence of that though.
For the last time, AJ_Liberty, and I’m kind of starting to lose my patience with having to explain this continually, the biggest controversy in the “original deal” is that it contained language which could have — and the Biden defense team believe did — foreclose the possibility that Hunter Biden could be charged for any crime he may have committed prior to 2020.
I wrote two posts on consecutive days about this matter about 46 weeks ago when Hunter had his first appearance in court after the “sweetheart” deal was crafted and Judge Noreika rejected it. Both of them are pretty extensive. Here is the one from July 26 and here is the one from July 27. Please feel free to read up on both of them to determine why I believe the Biden Justice Department did not act with integrity here. You commented on the July 26 story, so certainly it ought to ring a bell even if you’ve forgotten the details nearly one year later.
And I’ll conclude by saying what I said back then and repeated earlier today. The real hero in this is Judge Maryellen Norekia, who rather than just rubber-stamping some plea bargain that both sides seemed to have cooked up actually took the time to carefully read it and determine that it wasn’t up to what she felt ought to be the proper legal standard. We need more jurists like her on the bench.
JVW (1c7136) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:08 pmNow lets check every n.r.a. member’s records.
Sure! You get started on that, asset. And in the meantime, we’ll check the financial records of every member of the ACLU. Ought to be fun!
JVW (f9437d) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:11 pm@100 The N.R.A. was founded back then to protect black men and a few women’s second amendment right’s before wayne lapierre converted it into a corrupt cash cow for his personal use!
asset (6008c2) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:18 pm@102 thats why I pay my taxes to fund the fbi and justice department to go after corrupt organizations like the n.r.a. The A.C.L.U’s memebers have been looked at since ms. hoover’s time. remember nixon’s enemies list and ed meese’s justice department. Ever here the term 5th amendment communists and roy cohn?
asset (6008c2) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:25 pmEver here the term 5th amendment communists and roy cohn?
Ever “here” of Alger Hiss and Julius Rosenberg?
JVW (f25238) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:38 pm> Even pot addiction happens.
Sure, although it’s much less common than people think.
Psilocybin addiction, though, is *incredibly* rare.
aphrael (1797ab) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:48 pm@105 ever here of the hollywood 10 and the black list? When joe mccarthy wasn’t defending the nazi killers of our prisoners at Malmedy. He was waving around a blank piece of paper saying it was a list of 100 card carrying members of the communist party in the state department. Maybe you agree with robert oppenheimers security clearance being taken away?
asset (6008c2) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:50 pmThe rot of whataboutism is so unbelievably deep in this country.
Leviticus (02524a) — 6/11/2024 @ 8:59 pmMaybe you agree with robert oppenheimers security clearance being taken away?
In college one of my professors was Philip Morrison, who worked at Los Alamos with Oppenheimer and crew. He died nearly 20 years ago (he was already officially a professor emeritus by the time I knew him). He helped build the atomic bomb, but he became a staunch critic of nuclear armaments in the post-war era.
Despite his beliefs, and despite being a former comrade of Oppy’s in the communist party, Prof. Morrison apparently believed that it was the correct decision to strip Dr. Oppenheimer of his security clearance. A year or so after his death, a pretty comprehenisve book about the whole Red Scare and Oppenheimer’s eccentricities came out. It included some source material interviews with Philip Morrison, and in an interesting tidbit recounted in one of the book’s endnotes, Morrison apparently admitted that when he was asked by investigators whether he believed Oppenheimer posed a security threat, Morrison responded affirmatively.
So yeah, I think I would have supported revoking his clearance.
JVW (b91373) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:00 pmOppenheimer had been Morrison’s doctoral advisor, by the way, so it’s safe to say he had the basis to form a pretty solid impression of the man’s character.
JVW (fae3ae) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:06 pmDespite his beliefs, and despite being a former comrade of Oppy’s in the communist party, Prof. Morrison apparently believed that it was the correct decision to strip Dr. Oppenheimer of his security clearance.
JVW (b91373) — 6/11/2024 @ 9:00 pm
A brilliant scientific mind is no guarantee of sound judgment when it comes to politics and economics.
norcal (351f32) — 6/11/2024 @ 11:00 pmPelosi can say whatever in the heat of the moment, but she didn’t invite tens of
thousands of MAGA zealots to DC on J6 with the tease that it would be “wild”, and she
didn’t invite a couple of warm-up acts who said things like “trial by combat” and “today is
the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass”, and she didn’t give
a bombastic speech to those right-wingers with inciteful language such as “we fight like
hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”, and she
didn’t not call the authorities to request the National Guard when the rioting
was underway.
I get that MAGA Nation is still trying to blame-shift their responsibility for the J6
insurrection onto anyone else but themselves, but this is ridiculous. One man is
responsible, and it’s not Schumer or some Democrat or Antifa. It’s Trump.
The thing is, neither Nancy nor McConnell (who has equal responsibility for
Paul Montagu (a488d6) — 6/11/2024 @ 11:07 pmdecision making on the Capitol Police Board) had the prescience to anticipate a right-
wing insurrection at the Capitol, so they didn’t request National Guard beforehand.
Neither did Trump, and he had the benefit of having an FBI and DHS that actually had intel on
impending violence. But sure, it’s Nancy’s fault that she didn’t plan well enough to
prevent an assassination attempt on her life. We’re truly in f-cking BizarroWorld here.
Ack, formatting snafu.
Paul Montagu (a488d6) — 6/11/2024 @ 11:08 pmUnconstitutional, ummoshtitutional. A druggie with a gun is a clear and present danger. (Which, as you know, is the strictest constitutional scrutiny, and applied to prior restraints on free speech.)
nk (08d68e) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:16 amPaul,
for the last time. Trump asked for more security. She rejected it. Have a good day.
Keep covering for leftists.
NJRob (eb56c3) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:29 amNo, he didn’t, Rob. His own Acting SecDef was in the room with Trump and testified to that. Ornato’s testimony was found less than credible.
Paul Montagu (39a439) — 6/12/2024 @ 4:58 amhttps://www.justsecurity.org/93316/anatomy-of-a-conspiracy-theory-and-a-smear-still-no-evidence-of-trump-order-for-10000-guard-on-january-6th/
Enjoy your right-wing echo chamber. That’s where all the cool cultists hang out.
Paul Montagu (39a439) — 6/12/2024 @ 5:27 amIs Ornato the gentleman who said one thing in the committee hearing and another on Trumpvda and then, according to him, got a coldness in the feet when Liz Cheney “threatened” to have him called back to again testify under oath?
nk (08d68e) — 6/12/2024 @ 6:00 am@115
I’m amazed that anyone still pushes that line, which has been thoroughly debunked many times over. It’s not a matter of covering for leftists, but of telling the truth.
Roger
Roger (59229f) — 6/12/2024 @ 6:12 amLeftists love calling things that are true debunked. Hunter’s laptop was debunked. Covid as a lab leak was debunked. IRS going after conservative groups was debunked. And on and on.
Left wing echo chamber.
NJRob (d16824) — 6/12/2024 @ 6:47 am>> Even pot addiction happens.
Sure, although it’s much less common than people think.
It’s common enough
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/12/2024 @ 6:56 amMaybe you agree with robert oppenheimers security clearance being taken away?
Oppenheimer’s affiliations and Communist past would have been enough to deny a clearance to most people in the 1950s (or 60s or 70s or 80s). To refer to the post-war period that featured Stalin and the Soviets crushing eastern Europe and attempting to expand socialism by force everywhere else as “the Red Scare” is disingenuous at best.
Perhaps the methods used were wrong and some of the witnesses were acting with corrupt motives, but the outcome was not unusual.
BTW, I also think that Dalton Trumbo was a rotten piece of work and a paid Soviet agent of influence.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/12/2024 @ 7:02 amRIP basketball legend Jerry West (86).
Rip Murdock (816fe1) — 6/12/2024 @ 7:12 amHow so, exactly?
Rip Murdock (816fe1) — 6/12/2024 @ 7:14 am“Left wing echo chamber.”
Hardly. Anyone who knows me knows that I am every bit as critical of the cultural left, if not more. In this polarized atmosphere, centrists tend to get tarred as being on the right or left, depending on their interlocutor.
Roger (59229f) — 6/12/2024 @ 7:51 amHi Rip:
Not sure if Dalton was paid by Stalin’s folks. He certainly pushed a rather icky version of CPUSA sentiment in a number of films. See Tender Comrade, The Remarkable Andrew, Heaven With a Barbed Wire Fence.
That said, he’s also for a lot of very good scripts (Kitty Foyle, Spartacus, Gun Crazy).
Appalled (af1120) — 6/12/2024 @ 8:02 amI thought it was because Audrey Hepburn was sending coded messages to the Soviets by the way she crossed her legs in Roman Holiday (for which he won an Academy Award.) 😉
Tender Comrade was written when the US and the USSR were allies; at the same time (1944) Trumbo wrote Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. The Remarkable Andrew and Heaven With a Barbed Wire Fence are about as obscure as you can get. Heaven is better known as being the first major roles for Glenn Ford and Richard Conte than Communist propaganda. It was Kirk Douglas who recruited Trumbo to write Spartacus and publicly credit him (along with Otto Preminger to write Exodus) that helped break the Hollywood blacklist. Don’t forget The Brave One, which won Trumbo the (last) Academy Award for Best Story (as Robert Rich).
The influence of the Hollywood Ten on the American political scene (and culture) has been way overblown.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/12/2024 @ 9:11 amJVW, your point about the plea deal is a good one. Your broader point about ideological bias in the federal agencies is also good. But I’m not sure i buy it with the DOJ and other LEO agencies. From what I’ve seen the institutional bias there is towards the mission; of getting convictions, of keeping the country safe, of stemming the flow of illegal aliens etc.
From what I read in the trial transcript there wasn’t any hedging from the DOJ. When they were asked what was covered they promptly stated that it was just the charges listed and not anything else.
Poor work product for sure, but absent some other compelling evidence it doesn’t seem like corruption.
I agree with you the the judge in that case did a good job.
Time123 (316585) — 6/12/2024 @ 10:36 am@119, Roger, NJRob thinks anyone that disagrees with him his a radical left wing communist that hates haters America and is knowingly pushing propaganda to destroy the country and usher in Gay dictatorship that will ship all the Christians off to death camps.
Don’t take him too seriously.
Time123 (316585) — 6/12/2024 @ 10:39 amRip,
Most thngs about the Hollywood Ten was overblown — the alleged harm they did. Also, the catastrophic fascist harm that was allegedly done to them.
If I see that a movie has Dalton Trumbo in the credits, I will make a point of watching it. Accordingly, I have seen all the movies I cited (not the Brave One, though). There is a Russian commune that comes out of nowhere in Heaven that makes a bad movie worse. Tender Comrades doesn’t feature Russians despite the title — its just the propaganda content is very high and quite ludicrous. (Pity poor Ginger Rogers — she dares to interrupt Robert Ryan reading a very important magazine article.) The Remarkable Andrew is, indeed, quite remarkable.
Appalled (af1120) — 6/12/2024 @ 10:41 am@96 AJ, if I read JVW correctly he’s not alleging an explicit quid pro quo between the president and the prosecutor, but a culture that would incentive this prosecutor to reach a plea deal that may be more lenient then another randomly selected defendant would likely get.
Which doesn’t feel outlandish to me, the crime isn’t frequently charged and prosecting the presidents Son has got to be Tricky. He’ll get the best representation money can buy and any mistake (for or against him) will be widely shared by partisan’s in the media.
Honestly had the original plea deal been clearly restricted to the specifically listed items diversion for the gun crime would have felt ‘fair’ to me.
Time123 (316585) — 6/12/2024 @ 10:48 amI call out trolls and frauds.I have zero tolerance for mobys and liars.
Have a nice day.
NJRob (d16824) — 6/12/2024 @ 11:18 amAt one time, but the “clear and present danger test” was abandoned by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and replaced with a two prong test: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and (2) it is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/12/2024 @ 11:29 amProsecutors are always incentivized to reach plea deals; they would rather have guilty pleas than go to trial. That’s why they frequently overcharge defendants, hoping they will plead out to lesser charges.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/12/2024 @ 11:33 am@96
I highly encourage you to read this:
whembly (c88dc4) — 6/12/2024 @ 11:35 amhttps://www.nationalreview.com/2024/06/the-dojs-undeserved-victory-lap-over-hunters-convictions/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/06/the-dojs-undeserved-victory-lap-over-hunters-convictions/
In fact… I’ll highlight some sections:
And pay attention to next section AJ:
Do read the whole article.
whembly (c88dc4) — 6/12/2024 @ 11:41 amUnconstitutional:
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/12/2024 @ 11:45 amRIP Newsweek political correspondent Howard Fineman (75).
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/12/2024 @ 11:51 am@131
That statement is manifestly not true.
Wanna know why?
Prosecutorial descretion.
Only way they DON’T bring this case, is whether or not they don’t routinely prosecute this law. Because if there’s no recent cases in any of the jurisdictions, then Weiss could’ve staked the claim that they simply don’t prosecute, deeming not worth the resources.
That’s why you don’t see federal convictions for just possessing weed. It’s simply not worth it.
I see about 300 prosecutions for lying on form 4473, with no other apparent non-firearm prosectuions.
I do not see any federal prosecution for use/possession of weed. (I’ll stipulate that I may be searching it wrong, and happy if someone corrects).
whembly (c88dc4) — 6/12/2024 @ 11:51 amThere is something wrong with having to submit a form to enjoy a constitutional right.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/12/2024 @ 11:58 amHere’s what I didn’t see in the Hunter trial.
• Hunter and his devotees didn’t piss and moan almost daily on social media about a “witch hunt” and “weaponized DOJ”, despite the fact that a Trump-appointed Republican US Attorney has investigated Hunter since late 2018. Far as we know, Weiss didn’t receive death threats or other threats from the Hunter Claque.
• Hunter and his passionate followers didn’t constantly whine about a Trump-appointed judge presiding over the gun case, and he didn’t impugn her integrity or bring up the fact that most of her political donations were to Republicans, nor did he attack her staff and family. Far as we know, Noreika didn’t receive death threats or other threats from the Hunter Tribe.
• Hunter and his gang didn’t gripe about the composition of the jury, or name-call them or accuse them political bias. Far as we know, there was no apparent attempt to dox the jurors, nor were there any threats. One of the jurors was so unthreatened that he appeared on cable news yesterday and spoke with reason and compassion about how the twelve came to their verdict.
• Hunter didn’t b!tch and complain about the verdict, and didn’t scream that it was a “disgrace”. Instead, he exploded with this temper tantrum…
• Hunter didn’t get cited for contempt one single time, let alone ten times, because he wasn’t hit with a gag order in the first place.
I can’t help but notice the staggering difference in conduct between the two defendants, where one behaved like a regular citizen, while the Rage Machine is running for president.
It reminds of a piece I referenced last March, on the subject of habituation, which is a mental process that allows us to accept more and more outrageous conduct to the point we get used to it and can handle even more helpings of outrageous conduct, and it explains how morally upright people can ultimately participate in or excuse atrocities against other humans such as genocide.
Well, for me, I’m Shooter McGavin…
Is Trump so “baked in” that we just passively accept this behavior? To me, no, so I’m with Shooter, I’m NOT, even if I lose the debate, just like Shooter lost the Tour Championship to Happy, because it’s unacceptable for a grown man to behave this way.
Paul Montagu (383f45) — 6/12/2024 @ 12:09 pm@140
There’s an argument that submitting a form to self-incriminate violates that 6th Amendment.
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 12:12 pmhttps://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/tuefbi-tried-unmask-employees-trump-support-while-conducting
The DoJ is hopelessly corrupt.
NJRob (d16824) — 6/12/2024 @ 12:22 pm@139, My understanding is that the charge is the sort of thing that is added on with other charges, or a charge they use when they’re investigating someone and can’t find anything more serious they can prove. Possession of weed would be similar.
My point is that Hunter was selected for investigation because of politics and because he’s a crack head this charge was easy to prove. Had he not been politically prominent I doubt he’d have been investigated and charged with this.
Time123 (316585) — 6/12/2024 @ 12:25 pmI’m fine that he was investigated and convicted FWIW.
This is deceptive and a good example of why this guy’s editorials should be read skeptically.
In the context of the article this statement is meant to imply that Weiss was kept on because Biden viewed him as an ally.
In the reporting at the time it was made clear that Weiss was kept on because he was investigating the presidents Son. Firing him would create a conflict of interest that leaving him in place eliminated. Because he was appointed and lead the investigation under the previous administration there would be no way for Biden to have improperly influenced his appointment to the case.
I think the author knows that. Withholding that fact from his audience is deceptive.
Time123 (316585) — 6/12/2024 @ 12:29 pm@145
That’s exactly the context.
It’s apparent Weiss *is* a Biden ally by dutifully slow walking the investigation to the degree that any possible indictment would be time-barred.
Which gives Joe Biden the necessary cover.
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 12:34 pmwhembly —
National Review is paywalled, so I wont be reading the whole thing.
I guess I am trying to understand what the beef in McCarthy’s article is truly — which I guess is a belief H. Biden was undercharged. This is what we have Congressional committee’s for — getting at the truth. But since Comer and gang very foolishly had their conclusion before they got through the facts — they blew their credibility.
The only valuable part of Comer’s hearing was bringing whistleblowers to light regarding Hunter potentially being undercharged. However, that wasn’t terriby exciting, so we were treated to the bogus bribery accusations that were part of the Trump/Giuliani miasma of the first Trump impeachment. And now the whole thing looks like a sad joke generated to make Trump feel good about his own scumminess.
Appalled (af1120) — 6/12/2024 @ 12:39 pmHere’s a decent summary of what’s going on with Smirnov.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-informant-lied-investigators-about-bidens-business-dealings-special-counsel-says/
No idea if this puts a dent in the GOPs claims or not as I haven’t seen a bill of particulars, but it seems material that a key witness may have been lying to the FBI.
Also, Sorkin (the UKE prosecutor General) was using his office to shield Burisma
If you have the patience you can find articles about the British investigation from before this became relevant to US politics.
Time123 (316585) — 6/12/2024 @ 12:44 pmIt’s a shame the GOP is so incompetent as to appoint a Federal Prosecutor that’s an ‘dutiful’ ally of the Biden’s and then compound that error by putting that person in charge of investigating Hunter.
Too bad the only possible explanation for the observable fact patterns are this vague and broad reaching conspiracy you allege.
/snark
Time123 (316585) — 6/12/2024 @ 12:50 pmThat’s certainly true, especially when it comes to medical marijuana users. The either have the choice of lying on Form 4473, or telling the truth and be denied their constitutional rights.
Source, p. 19.
The Sixth Amendment doesn’t protect you against self-incrimination, it’s part of the Fifth Amendment.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/12/2024 @ 1:01 pmFootnotes were omitted in the quoted paragraph in post 150.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/12/2024 @ 1:09 pmThe Sixth Amendment doesn’t protect you against self-incrimination, it’s part of the Fifth Amendment.
It’s both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Miranda’s companion case was Escobedo v. Illinois. That’s why you have a right to an attorney before and during questioning and if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.
nk (c2e4b4) — 6/12/2024 @ 1:35 pm> That’s why you have a right to an attorney before and during questioning and if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.
That’s been a target of conservative jurisprudence for half a century, want to bet on it still being a constitutional right by the end of the decade?
aphrael (1797ab) — 6/12/2024 @ 1:37 pmAnd if Thomas had not been dreaming of Malay pirates on Harlan Crow’s yacht, he would not have asked his stupid question. No Constitutional right is like another and the Second Amendment has its own uniqueness.
Guns are dangerous. They’re supposed to be dangerous. If they were not dangerous, nobody would want them. In the hands of unreasoning persons, they are unreasonably dangerous.
nk (c2e4b4) — 6/12/2024 @ 1:41 pmThat’s been a target of conservative jurisprudence for half a century, want to bet on it still being a constitutional right by the end of the decade?
I don’t know.
nk (c2e4b4) — 6/12/2024 @ 1:51 pm@149
Are you trying to be dense?
It’s not the GOP who selected Weiss… it was the two Democratic Senators are pushed his appointment by stated that they’re send their “blue slips”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip_(U.S._Senate)#:~:text=In%20the%20Senate%2C%20a%20blue,an%20opinion%20on%20the%20nominee.
So, please step off of this “conspiratorial” accusation.
It’s beneath you.
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 1:53 pm@152
Yup. This.
@Rip: my argument is that there are colorable arguments that demanding a document to snitch on yourself, as a gatekeeping method to restrict a right could be unconstitutional.
I think, at the maximum, background checks should *only* check if you’re a citizen AND an adult (18 yo).
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 1:59 pmToday’s example of habituation: When a Trump fundraising letter opens with…
…and gets just a trickle of media attention. It hearkens to me the image of the scaffold on J6 with Pence’s name on it.
Paul Montagu (383f45) — 6/12/2024 @ 2:01 pm@147
The fundamental beefs McCarthy describes in his post are:
a) Weiss slow walked the investigation, to the point that statute of limitations eventually time barred the most serious of the allegations – namely the tax fraud during when Hunter was working for Burisma and took money from China (CEFC). All of which would’ve exposed Joe Biden had Weiss vigorously prosecuted those allegations.
b) The gamesmanship Weiss & Garland conducted to cover Joe Biden as much as possible.
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 2:03 pm@158
While certainly in bad taste, you do know that scaffold was just a prop… it wasn’t functional nor “people” sized.
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 2:04 pm@153
What the hell are you even talking about?
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 2:05 pmMontagu —
I went and looked at the link. It’s not a January 6 reference — it dates to earlier grievances (Kathy Griffin, would you believe?)
Trump whining about being treated poorly isn’t news.
Appalled (af1120) — 6/12/2024 @ 2:14 pmhttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-holding-attorney-general-garland-contempt-biden-audio-rcna156327
House holds Garland in contempt.
…guess how likely the DOJ would prosecute Garland?
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 2:29 pm>What the hell are you even talking about?
Conservative legal activists have been opposed to Miranda since it was decided. It was one of the major things that conservative activists railed against in the years between Miranda and Roe, and it’s remained in disfavor in conservative legal circles.
aphrael (1797ab) — 6/12/2024 @ 2:37 pmWhembly, I haven’t followed the case as much as you have (I already decided long ago that Hunter Biden was a POS and I wouldn’t be voting for him). Can you explain “The gamesmanship Weiss & Garland conducted to cover Joe Biden as much as possible.”
What did they do? And is it well documented they did these things or are you speculating?
Nate (cfb326) — 6/12/2024 @ 2:39 pm@165
If you haven’t used up your free articles on NR yet, read this (which includes supporting citations/links):
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/06/the-dojs-undeserved-victory-lap-over-hunters-convictions/
But, I’ll excerpt a portion that answers your question:
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 2:54 pm@164
ROE, yes you are correct.
But, I don’t believe “conservative legal circles” disfavors Miranda or any Due Process framework.
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 2:56 pmYeah, you’re just wrong on the history there. Maybe conservatives have made their peace with it, but Miranda was one of the key Warren court decisions that conservatives of the time decried, because it made it harder for police to do their jobs and helped criminals get away with their crimes, particularly by undermining the efficacy of police interrogations.
aphrael (1797ab) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:02 pm@168 I’ll stipulate that historically, you may be right.
But, I’m 47 and in my lifetime I don’t really recall that Miranda/Due Process/any constraints against “police to do their job” was really disfavored by “conservative legal circles”.
As recently as 10 years ago (might even been during the Bush years), many in the “conservative legal circles” has been moving against the idea of civic forfeiture, and the likes.
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:10 pmMore broadly, the conservative opposition to the Warren court which launched the entire modern conservative legal movement was centered on objection to these pillars:
* decisions like Miranda which were perceived as undermining law and order (see also the decisions which effectively gutted vagrancy laws);
* decisions which were perceived as driving religion out of the public square;
* decisions which were perceived as unsettling the political balance (one man / one vote and its descendants)
the law-and-order objections were in a lot of ways the strongest, and had the broadest political appeal.
aphrael (1797ab) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:12 pmI also think that Dalton Trumbo was a rotten piece of work and a paid Soviet agent of influence.
Among other things, he wrote anti-Hitler propaganda in the 30’s, switched to pro-Hitler/isolationist stuff after Hitler and Stalin agreed to rape Poland, and then switched to pro-war again after the pact broke down.
But wait, there’s more:
https://nypost.com/2015/11/05/trumbo-is-a-whitewash-of-an-unrepentant-hollywood-commie/
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:20 pm@Rip: my argument is that there are colorable arguments that demanding a document to snitch on yourself, as a gatekeeping method to restrict a right could be unconstitutional.
Great. We can get rid of tax returns then, too.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:29 pm@172
Under what explicit Constitution/Amendment framework could be used to identify a right that filing tax returns infringes on?
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:34 pm> Under what explicit Constitution/Amendment framework could be used to identify a right that filing tax returns infringes on?
the right to not self-incriminate, i imagine.
there are extant cases of people being prosecuted for failing to report, on their income taxes, gains from illegal enterprises.
aphrael (1797ab) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:42 pm@175
But there’s a difference… right?
What’s the equivalent to the 2nd Amendment to a right/amendment to not pay taxes and ignore the 16th Amendment?
whembly (86df54) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:47 pmUnder what explicit Constitution/Amendment framework could be used to identify a right that filing tax returns infringes on?
The Right to Privacy? The Right to be secure in my papers and effects from government intrusion?
It’s not the tax that’s the problem it’s the ever-increasing level of detail required for the bureaucrats to determine if I’ve paid the right amount. Not only must I pay, but I must snitch on myself about all my financial dealings even if I have never been suspected of not paying the right amount and/or when audited I have shown to HAVE paid the right amount.
I am essentially served with a warrant without probable cause. Isn’t getting the money enough for them?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:50 pmWhat’s the equivalent to the 2nd Amendment to a right/amendment to not pay taxes and ignore the 16th Amendment?
I am not allowed to just pay the taxes. I am also forced to report all my financial dealings, even those that have little to no bearing on my tax liability.
And still they have the ability to — without the least pretense of probable cause — to audit my return and demand all my records (which I must store in proper order for their convenience for a number of years). The “taxpayer compliance audit” ignores the 4th Amendment.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/12/2024 @ 3:57 pmWhembly – you’re correct that there is no argument that says you are immune to the requirement to pay taxes.
But the fifth amendment means you can’t be required to provide evidence against yourself, right? So if you’re underpaying taxes, you can’t be required to provide the evidence that you’re doing so, and you can’t be required to provide evidence that you’re profiting from illegal activity.
At least, that’s the argument.
aphrael (1797ab) — 6/12/2024 @ 4:28 pmyou can’t be required to provide the evidence that you’re doing so
Sure you can. They just need a warrant, based upon probable cause, stating the items the be surrendered.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/12/2024 @ 4:36 pmAbout as likely as the Clinton DOJ prosecuting Holder or the Trump DOJ prosecuting Bill Barr.
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/12/2024 @ 4:55 pmRIP ’60s French singer and fashion icon Françoise Hardy (80).
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/12/2024 @ 5:30 pmRIP French Connection actor Tony Lo Bianco (87):
Rip Murdock (816fe1) — 6/12/2024 @ 5:51 pmAbout as likely as the Clinton DOJ prosecuting Holder or the Trump DOJ prosecuting Bill Barr.
About as likely as Clinton’s IRS subjecting Paula Jones to a tax audit.
Oh, wait.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/12/2024 @ 6:10 pm@120 I’m a leftist when did I say lap top was debunked? Corporate establishment third way clinton/biden/dnc democrats and their running dogs in corporate media said it was debunked. Get your enemies strait.
asset (cfcdf4) — 6/12/2024 @ 7:49 pmCorrection: Eric Holder was Attorney General under Obama.
Rip Murdock (816fe1) — 6/12/2024 @ 7:50 pm@122 Dalton Trumbo was a great american who never committed treason unlike nixon and reagan to win elections. Watch the movie Trumbo to see how a real american behaves in hollywood unlike reagan who couldn’t remember why he sold out the screen actors to the grand jury probing his corrupt leadership. He may be a crook ;but at least he is an anti-communist crook! See book Dark Victory reagan MCA and the mob. by dan moldea.
asset (cfcdf4) — 6/12/2024 @ 7:57 pmBiden says he won’t pardon hunter ;but refuses to rule out commutation of sentence. (AP)
asset (cfcdf4) — 6/12/2024 @ 8:00 pm@130 see the brave one its great! If you have young children they will love it! Adults too!
asset (cfcdf4) — 6/12/2024 @ 8:05 pm@171 Glad to see that doesn’t happen today. The 2020 election was stolen/hunter biden’s lap top disinformation!
asset (cfcdf4) — 6/12/2024 @ 8:24 pmThat’s disingenuous-there isn’t a direct quote from Biden saying that; AP is only reporting that White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre “has not spoken to the president about the issue since the verdict was delivered Tuesday,” and she is quoted as saying on a commutation, “I just don’t have anything beyond that (his statement on ABC News (last week).”
I’m sure President Biden will be asked about it at the debate. In any event, H. Biden can remain free for a long time while both his cases wind through the appeals process.
Rip Murdock (816fe1) — 6/12/2024 @ 8:38 pm@186: Q.E.D. Rip
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/12/2024 @ 8:46 pm