2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: drck1000 on June 11, 2024, 08:49:41 AM
-
Hunter Biden 'disappointed' by guilty verdict, Trump campaign calls gun trial a 'distraction'
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/june-11-jury-deliberation-hunter-biden-verdict
Not news, but I'm posting because I found it interesting that probably/likely grounds for appeal is that Hunter's 2a rights were violated. My first reaction was the irony of Biden (family or otherwise) looking for 2a as a "defense" for Hunter. Second was a more cynical, multi-dimension chess, borderline CMO tinfoil conspiracy angle that now Biden will gain support for a "by extension" pro-2a stance.
In any case, mostly keeping tabs on this to observe the circus that is politics and if/how it will impact 2a.
-
Very true, so many ways this could go.
The irony of Biden's son's case being one that increased gun rights would be great however I am skeptical if it would ever go that far. If Biden ends up pardoning his son (and if the pardon withstands a legal test) then the 2A aspect of the case may never even go that far. So for Biden to pardon his son is two birds with one stone, that is what I am putting my money on. Plus since I think Biden will end up dropping out before a second term anyway, he suffers no real blowback for pardoning his son. I think the main benefit is for Biden to show that the justice system isn't rigged and even his own son gets charged.
I kind of doubt Hunter would face prison time anyway, 1st time offender, non-violent crime, and he can claim he was an addict at the time. I suspect he would get probation and maybe a referral to a drug treatment program.
-
Why isnt MDA or ET celebrating?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-2023-interview-son-did-nothing-wrong-resurfaces-hunters-guilty-verdict
Biden spoke with MSNBC on a variety of issues during an interview that aired on May 5, 2023. In the last seconds of the interview on "The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle," Biden was asked how potential criminal charges against Hunter Biden would impact his presidency.
"First of all, my son's done nothing wrong," Biden answered. "I trust him. I have faith in him and it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him."
-
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-2023-interview-son-did-nothing-wrong-resurfaces-hunters-guilty-verdict
Biden spoke with MSNBC on a variety of issues during an interview that aired on May 5, 2023. In the last seconds of the interview on "The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle," Biden was asked how potential criminal charges against Hunter Biden would impact his presidency.
"First of all, my son's done nothing wrong," Biden answered. "I trust him. I have faith in him and it impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him."
Democrat playbook: deny, deny, then deny profusely. If the truth comes out, claim conspiracy, political witch hunt and "will be vindicated in the end."
I never trust any politician when they say they (or a family member) "did nothing wrong" unless there's already been a thorugh and fair investigation.
If you lived through the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, you already know the truth.
-
Did he or did he not falsely fill out the paperwork to acquire that revolver?
How can he and his retarded daddy claim he did nothing wrong?
-
Very true, so many ways this could go.
The irony of Biden's son's case being one that increased gun rights would be great however I am skeptical if it would ever go that far. 1) If Biden ends up pardoning his son (and if the pardon withstands a legal test) then the 2A aspect of the case may never even go that far. 2) So for Biden to pardon his son is two birds with one stone, that is what I am putting my money on. 3) Plus since I think Biden will end up dropping out before a second term anyway, he suffers no real blowback for pardoning his son. 4) I think the main benefit is for Biden to show that the justice system isn't rigged and even his own son gets charged.
5) I kind of doubt Hunter would face prison time anyway, 1st time offender, non-violent crime, and he can claim he was an addict at the time. I suspect he would get probation and maybe a referral to a drug treatment program.
1) Whether or not the case goes forward or get to a higher court isn't the point. It's what the Biden Admin does in reaction to his son's conviction, that is IF they pursue the 2a angle.
2) Pardon may help is son, but again the point is whatever the Biden Admin does with this will be the interesting part. I think it's a no win. At least IMO.
3) I think if Biden pardons his son then drops out makes things worse. Worse for credibility if those that follow. Which is where I am hoping the questions come from within.
4) Sooooo, you think Hunter's conviction and pardon is a shining example of the justice system not being rigged? ???
5) Beyond the point. I also suspect Hunter will face any consequences. Again, point is, at least the point of this thread is all the levels of hypocrisy that is likely to come out to save dear Hunter. . .
-
Democrat playbook: deny, deny, then deny profusely. If the truth comes out, claim conspiracy, political witch hunt and "will be vindicated in the end."
1) I never trust any politician when they say they (or a family member) "did nothing wrong" unless there's already been a thorugh and fair investigation.
2) If you lived through the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, you already know the truth.
1) Like the Kealohas?
2) That Bill had interesting taste in women. . .
-
Why isnt MDA or ET celebrating?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
They do so many things, like they're busy celebrating Pride Month now. They probably just forgot about it.
-
I'm surprised that Biden's admin hasn't used this to say that 4473 doesn't work and they need a more invasive form of checking the answers to the questions.
-
I think his 2a rights were violated.
-
He got a sweetheart deal. Tax evasion for influence peddling (aka treason) was swept under the rug.
They will probably let him out in a month or two.
-
A few hours after the verdict and he's pandering to Moms Demand Satisfaction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZaL071f654
-
Did he or did he not falsely fill out the paperwork to acquire that revolver?
How can he and his retarded daddy claim he did nothing wrong?
There is wiggle room one could argue regarding the interpretation of the question.
The question on the form is:
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
If Biden had "quit" using illegal drugs the day before he could argue that he was no longer an unlawful user.. It is an issue with the question wording because when does an addiction end?
-
1) Whether or not the case goes forward or get to a higher court isn't the point. It's what the Biden Admin does in reaction to his son's conviction, that is IF they pursue the 2a angle.
2) Pardon may help is son, but again the point is whatever the Biden Admin does with this will be the interesting part. I think it's a no win. At least IMO.
3) I think if Biden pardons his son then drops out makes things worse. Worse for credibility if those that follow. Which is where I am hoping the questions come from within.
4) Sooooo, you think Hunter's conviction and pardon is a shining example of the justice system not being rigged? ???
5) Beyond the point. I also suspect Hunter will face any consequences. Again, point is, at least the point of this thread is all the levels of hypocrisy that is likely to come out to save dear Hunter. . .
1. I do think it matters because if it goes up for appeal and the appeals court reverses it then Biden never has to play the pardon car.
2. Since I think Biden isn't planning on going all the way I don't think he cares if it is a win. Even if he is planning to go all the way, he can always just pardon him after the election then it doesn't hurt huis campaign.
3. Pardons then drops out makes it worse? I don't really see how it makes things worse for Biden or his family. Do you mean worse for the country?
4. A shining example? No but having Hunter get convicted is what I would expect from a functioning justice system. Presidents have the legal power to pardon, that isn't rigging anything. Presidents have pardoned friends and associates before. Pardoning Hunter only helps Hunter substantially if Hunter were sentenced to jail. Being pardoned wont change that he is a convicted felon.
5. From the commentary I have heard on this case it would be unusual for him not to get any jail time but it is also unusual to charge someone for these specific crimes by themselves so arguments can be made both ways in terms of whether Hunter is getting it better or worse than the average person.
-
There is wiggle room one could argue regarding the interpretation of the question.
The question on the form is:
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
If Biden had "quit" using illegal drugs the day before he could argue that he was no longer an unlawful user.. It is an issue with the question wording because when does an addiction end?
Never. Addictions like Hunter's do not end.
Those addicts face a lifetime of recovery. It doesn't take much for them to relapse.
He's been in and out of rehab and relapsed enough times to know this first hand.
It's a well known and medically accepted fact that if you used in the last few days or hours, you are a user. A simple declaration you've quit for a day is not sufficient to prove you're no longer an addict/user.
The question doesn't need nuance. It's common sense.
-
it depends on what your definition of "is" is...
There is wiggle room one could argue regarding the interpretation of the question.
The question on the form is:
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
If Biden had "quit" using illegal drugs the day before he could argue that he was no longer an unlawful user.. It is an issue with the question wording because when does an addiction end?
-
There is wiggle room one could argue regarding the interpretation of the question.
The question on the form is:
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
If Biden had "quit" using illegal drugs the day before he could argue that he was no longer an unlawful user.. It is an issue with the question wording because when does an addiction end?
What if he had a RX for meth? Did the prosecution ever prove this without a reasonable doubt? Like did they call every single doctor in the USA? Did they call every doctor in the world, as even international travelers can bring in drugs into the US with a prescription.
-
1. I do think it matters because if it goes up for appeal and the appeals court reverses it then Biden never has to play the pardon car.
2. Since I think Biden isn't planning on going all the way I don't think he cares if it is a win. Even if he is planning to go all the way, he can always just pardon him after the election then it doesn't hurt huis campaign.
3. Pardons then drops out makes it worse? I don't really see how it makes things worse for Biden or his family. Do you mean worse for the country?
4. A shining example? No but having Hunter get convicted is what I would expect from a functioning justice system. Presidents have the legal power to pardon, that isn't rigging anything. Presidents have pardoned friends and associates before. Pardoning Hunter only helps Hunter substantially if Hunter were sentenced to jail. Being pardoned wont change that he is a convicted felon.
5. From the commentary I have heard on this case it would be unusual for him not to get any jail time but it is also unusual to charge someone for these specific crimes by themselves so arguments can be made both ways in terms of whether Hunter is getting it better or worse than the average person.
1) I didn't say it didn't matter. I was focusing/commenting on Biden and his Admin's reaction.
2) Again, whether or not Biden continues running is not relevant to his actions/choices in the next few months, particularly from a 2a perspective, which again is why I posted here.
3) Yeah, pardoning his son makes it worse for his family. [end sarcasm\] Again, thinking from a 2a hypocrisy perspective. In this case, I do think it's a damned if he does, damned if he doesn't situation.
4) Yes, yes, yes. I understand that Presidents have the legal power to pardon. Just because he can, you think that makes it right?
5) Clarification on my original response. I suspect Hunter will NOT face any legal consequences. I don't think he will get jail time, pardon or not.
-
Never. Addictions like Hunter's do not end.
Those addicts face a lifetime of recovery. It doesn't take much for them to relapse.
He's been in and out of rehab and relapsed enough times to know this first hand.
It's a well known and medically accepted fact that if you used in the last few days or hours, you are a user. A simple declaration you've quit for a day is not sufficient to prove you're no longer an addict/user.
The question doesn't need nuance. It's common sense.
This isn't a common sense question it is a legal question and potentially a medical question.
Different drugs linger in their effects and different people can experience them differently too so it can be a difficult thing to prove in court. It was easier to prove in court here because Hunter wrote a book and there were witnesses but generally speaking its not always going to be so obvious someone is an occasional user or an addict.
-
What if he had a RX for meth? Did the prosecution ever prove this without a reasonable doubt? Like did they call every single doctor in the USA? Did they call every doctor in the world, as even international travelers can bring in drugs into the US with a prescription.
If Hunter had a prescription for meth it wouldn't apply because the question is about unlawful use of drugs. If Hunter had alleged that his crack use (not meth) was somehow prescription then the prosecution would have to take reasonable steps to address this. There is prescription meth but I am not familiar with prescription crack cocaine.
-
This isn't a common sense question it is a legal question and potentially a medical question.
Different drugs linger in their effects and different people can experience them differently too so it can be a difficult thing to prove in court. It was easier to prove in court here because Hunter wrote a book and there were witnesses but generally speaking its not always going to be so obvious someone is an occasional user or an addict.
Where does the questionnaire ask about the type of drug or length of "lingering effects?"
Use of any illegal drug is included. So is addictive use of prescription drugs or alcohol. People know if the drugs are illegal and if they are addicted. Since when does the FFL or FBI have to prove you answered falsely to deny you?
They rely on honest answers and information reported to NICS. In states like Hawaii, they also rely on the stricter background checks which included medical care provider records.
As I said, common sense. If you're a frequent consumer of certain mind altering drugs, you're a user. If you have been unable to stop using, you're an addict.
In before you use the most used lie by addicts: "I'm not addicted. I can quit anything I choose."
You're really arguing that there's no way to stop someone from lying on the form. Your stance is no different than when I stated many times that laws don't stop crime.
Welcome to reality.
-
Where does the questionnaire ask about the type of drug or length of "lingering effects?"
Use of any illegal drug is included. So is addictive use of prescription drugs or alcohol. People know if the drugs are illegal and if they are addicted. Since when does the FFL or FBI have to prove you answered falsely to deny you?
They rely on honest answers and information reported to NICS. In states like Hawaii, they also rely on the stricter background checks which included medical care provider records.
As I said, common sense. If you're a frequent consumer of certain mind altering drugs, you're a user. If you have been unable to stop using, you're an addict.
In before you use the most used lie by addicts: "I'm not addicted. I can quit anything I choose."
You're really arguing that there's no way to stop someone from lying on the form. Your stance is no different than when I stated many times that laws don't stop crime.
Welcome to reality.
If a form asks a technical question but is too vague in its defining of the terms you don't just go applying the test of whether Flapp thinks it is common sense.
In the case of Hunter there was little doubt that he was an addict when he got the gun. I was pointing out the general problem with the question that leaves the door open for a defendant to cast doubt.
-
If a form asks a technical question but is too vague in its defining of the terms you don't just go applying the test of whether Flapp thinks it is common sense.
In the case of Hunter there was little doubt that he was an addict when he got the gun. I was pointing out the general problem with the question that leaves the door open for a defendant to cast doubt.
Since when is defining if someone uses drugs "technical?"
I guess it is if you just want to argue.
-
it depends on what your definition of "is" is...
Lol! That f*cker Clinton has forever changed the landscape of integrity with that bullcrap. :rofl:
Yeah. Hunter is no longer an addict. He "quit" recently before all the hoopla. He's a good boy. :rofl:
I would have respected him more if he replied on the form, "Yes, and I love it." Clinton must have impressed him a lot with the clinton dodge and weave. I went to re-hab a few weeks ago therefore I am no longer an addict. Gimmie that damn gun.
-
Hunter should appeal. The charges are against his constitutional rights. Self incrimination. And the use of drugs shouldn't take away your constitutional rights. Imagine if you smoked pot and no longer have freedom of speech.
-
Hunter should appeal. The charges are against his constitutional rights. Self incrimination. And the use of drugs shouldn't take away your constitutional rights. Imagine if you smoked pot and no longer have freedom of speech.
Where was his right to not be forced to incriminate himself violated?
-
Where was his right to not be forced to incriminate himself violated?
It wasn't.
Unless the gun was in his possession before answering the 4473 questions, he wasn't a felon or drug user/addict in possession of a firearm. There was no crime at the point he made the check mark on the paper, so nothing to incriminate himself over.
The law he broke was perjury -- lying on a government form which he attested to.
He did become a drug addict in possession of a firearm after lying on the form and passing the NICS check. Any "forced admission" occurred well before that situation existed.
Do we now have pre-crime for unconstitutional government laws?
-
Where was his right to not be forced to incriminate himself violated?
To not lie he would have to admit to doing illegal drugs, thus self incriminating.
-
It wasn't.
Unless the gun was in his possession before answering the 4473 questions, he wasn't a felon or drug user/addict in possession of a firearm. There was no crime at the point he made the check mark on the paper, so nothing to incriminate himself over.
The law he broke was perjury -- lying on a government form which he attested to.
He did become a drug addict in possession of a firearm after lying on the form and passing the NICS check. Any "forced admission" occurred well before that situation existed.
Do we now have pre-crime for unconstitutional government laws?
Last time I checked doing meth was illegal.
-
To not lie he would have to admit to doing illegal drugs, thus self incriminating.
Are you talking about when he filled out the 4473? I don’t think that counts as “being compelled… to be a witness against himself.”
-
Last time I checked doing meth was illegal.
Last time I checked, the 4473 doesn't ask for specifics on your drug use. It merely asks IF you are are user or addict.
The only consequence is being denied your purchase. The FFL isn't going to call the Cops on you for saying you are "doing meth".
If you think they will, you're delusional.
This is no different than answering if you're a legal US citizen or resident. If not, you can be denied your firearm purchase.
Nobody is going to call INS, just like they are not going to call the Cops. If you aren't arrested based on your answers to the 4473 questions, where is the "incrimination" you were forced to commit?
(https://i.imgur.com/0MW6UIC.png)
-
Are you talking about when he filled out the 4473? I don’t think that counts as “being compelled… to be a witness against himself.”
Exactly. The stated purpose of the form: "will be used to determine whether you are prohibited by federal or state law from receiving a firearm."
That's not confessing to a crime. It's giving the FFL and FBI information to be used in making that determination. Generally, answering "Yes" to any question/s except for 21.a. "Are you the actual transferee/buyer" will likely get your purchase request denied.
To cite another example, if you make $50,000 through some unlawful enterprise or activities, like gambling in Hawaii or selling drugs, you must still report that income when you file your income tax returns. Filing a false return is a felony. What you did to obtain that income may only be a misdemeanor. However, the IRS is not going to initiate an investigation into your illegal activities based solely on the information on your return.
Having said that, if law enforcement is investigating you, they may obtain your returns, which may be used as evidence of your unlawful activities. But, that just means the agency already had evidence you were breaking the law -- hence the investigation.
There's a legal reason government forms are required to inform you of the purposes, uses and consequences of not providing the information requested. They aren't allowed to use the information you provide for any other purpose, including filing charges for acts you included on the form.
It boils down to one thing: answering truthfully that you use drugs is stupid. If you already know in advance you will be denied by answering "Yes", why are you even submitting the form?
Lying on the form by saying "No" might get you that gun, but you just committed a felony.
I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any
false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime
punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.
-
He's the president's son. He's special. Or so he thought.
-
firearms policy coalition offering to help hunter's legal team...
-
If Hunter had a prescription for meth it wouldn't apply because the question is about unlawful use of drugs. If Hunter had alleged that his crack use (not meth) was somehow prescription then the prosecution would have to take reasonable steps to address this. There is prescription meth but I am not familiar with prescription crack cocaine.
If he didn't take his RX of meth (crack) every 8 hours as prescribed, then he is an unlawful user of it. So if he waited instead 7 hours and 59 minutes, he just broke the law. C'mon man, think about all the factors that this could be possible.
-
firearms policy coalition offering to help hunter's legal team...
I'm still waiting for them to do something in HI.
-
Last time I checked, the 4473 doesn't ask for specifics on your drug use. It merely asks IF you are are user or addict.
The only consequence is being denied your purchase. The FFL isn't going to call the Cops on you for saying you are "doing meth".
If you think they will, you're delusional.
This is no different than answering if you're a legal US citizen or resident. If not, you can be denied your firearm purchase.
Nobody is going to call INS, just like they are not going to call the Cops. If you aren't arrested based on your answers to the 4473 questions, where is the "incrimination" you were forced to commit?
(https://i.imgur.com/0MW6UIC.png)
Soooo. . . to "some people's" logic, the trap was being forced to complete the 4473? :hmm:
-
cool story, bro...
I'm still waiting for them to do something in HI.
-
Soooo. . . to "some people's" logic, the trap was being forced to complete the 4473? :hmm:
Exactly.
Imagine if you have to answer questions about your status as a felon in order to register to vote.
Unconstitutional!!
:wacko:
-
https://youtube.com/shorts/RVuur_zzwPw?si=rJuCFqQKvTTzbcvm
-
https://youtube.com/shorts/RVuur_zzwPw?si=rJuCFqQKvTTzbcvm
The reasoning of an idiot should always fall on deaf ears.
Oh by the way, Hunter secured his firearm by throwing it in the rubbish can. Like father. Like son.
Rubbish.
-
When Steve Bannon calls the Biden family a pack of feral dogs I was wondering why he would pick that particular metaphor. According to people who claim to have seen what was on the laptop, some text messages that got released, and Ashley's diary after Hunter had sex with his dead brothers wife he later turned his attention towards his 14yo niece. Apparently there's topless photos of her on the laptop. Topless doing what? That remains to be seen.
Her mom tried to tell the other Bidens but they rallied around Hunter and cut her out of the picture. Apparently even with the adultery she's not depraved enough to stay in the pack.
https://headlineusa.com/biden-family-hunter-molested-niece/
-
If he didn't take his RX of meth (crack) every 8 hours as prescribed, then he is an unlawful user of it. So if he waited instead 7 hours and 59 minutes, he just broke the law. C'mon man, think about all the factors that this could be possible.
Meth isn't crack.....
-
Last time I checked doing meth was illegal.
There is prescription meth.
-
Since when is defining if someone uses drugs "technical?"
I guess it is if you just want to argue.
Being an addict is a technical term.
-
please show me where he said "Since when is defining if someone is addicted to drugs "technical?"
.Being an addict is a technical term.
-
Being an addict is a technical term.
So, you change your reply to address something i never said.
What's that called again? Some sort of logical fallacy, IIRC.
-
So, you change your reply to address something i never said.
What's that called again? Some sort of logical fallacy, IIRC.
What are you talking about? I didn't change my reply.
The topic was being an addict and I said "This isn't a common sense question it is a legal question and potentially a medical question." then you tried to switch topics by making it about using. I never said "using" is a technical term.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=53760.msg482947#msg482947
-
please show me where he said "Since when is defining if someone is addicted to drugs "technical?"
.
I didn't say that he said that. The topic was being an addict and he said it was common sense. I disputed that claim by saying it is a technical question, not a common sense question.
-
Meth isn't crack.....
Captain obvious.