Hunter “Big Gun In His Pants” Biden - Mastermind of the Biden Family Crime Syndicate

[Incredulity 11,671]

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean.....if you messaged every MAGAt you know this factually accurate messsage: "The Biden DOJ just appointed a special counsel to investigate one of the president's sons!"....they would flip the hell out, and scream about the weaponized DOJ, because they see everything as relating to Trump.  When you told them "actually, it's to investigate Biden," you'll actually be able to see the little hamster wheel in their head screech to a stop.

Wrong.

heard on talk radio the accusation that the special counsel is only a strategy to keep the facts that were coming hard and fast in the dark of a drawn out special counsel process.

can’t make this shit up.

[aggie08 21,504]

11 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Wrong.

heard on talk radio the accusation that the special counsel is only a strategy to keep the facts that were coming hard and fast in the dark of a drawn out special counsel process.

can’t make this shit up.

Yeah, man, you can. But you heard it on talk radio though, so carry on.

[Incredulity 11,671]

1 minute ago, aggie08 said:

Yeah, man, you can. But you heard it on talk radio though, so carry on.

I’m saying it’s ridiculous.

but it’s all been ridiculous for a long time 

 

carry on

[aggie08 21,504]

Apologies, I've been predispositioned for you to take the dumbest opinions possible, so I missed the sarcasm.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,400]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I’m saying it’s ridiculous.

but it’s all been ridiculous for a long time 

 

carry on

I'm convinced and will no longer vote for Hunter Biden. 

[Incredulity 11,671]

Just now, aggie08 said:

Apologies, I've been predispositioned for you to take the dumbest opinions possible, so I missed the sarcasm.

Love you too

[Incredulity 11,671]

Just now, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I'm convinced and will no longer vote for Hunter Biden. 

Republican President in 2036

lead pipe lock

[TwiceHorn 31,471]

Good discussion of trial dates and why it's probably good that Cannon deferred the MAL date.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/jack-smith-trump-january-trial-date-dc-cannon-rcna99329

tl;dr the MAL case is fundamentally more complicated because of classified information and the number of counts, by pushing it off, it freed time/space for an early 1/6 trial.

[TwiceHorn 31,471]

One think I missed about the Hunter Special Counsel is that Weiss is a sitting US Attorney.  That is weird and irregular.  Am I missing something?

Usually, to decouple the special counsel from DOJ, it's someone not currently employed by DOJ.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

Weiss asked to be special counsel?

[The Royal We 3,072]

42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One think I missed about the Hunter Special Counsel is that Weiss is a sitting US Attorney.  That is weird and irregular.  Am I missing something?

Usually, to decouple the special counsel from DOJ, it's someone not currently employed by DOJ.

Wasn’t Durham a US attorney at the time of his appointment as well? 
 

Doesn’t seem all that irregular. 

[Chopper 17,235]

from threaderapp

Josh Marshall @joshtpm

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1690091969412845568.html

Let’s admit that every reporter in DC knows but most won’t say for fear of falling out of favor with the bothsides rules of official DC: there is a two-tiered Justice System. One for Democrats, in which the most exacting focus on conflicts of interest are followed, often going …

2/ well beyond not only what the law or established norms require but sometimes even basic logic. Meanwhile for Republicans most of these rules simply don’t apply. Ever. Does anyone think that a newly installed President Trump in 2025 would leave in place US Attorneys …

3/ investigating matters tied to Trump or the Trump family for years into his administration? The very idea is absurd. In fact the Trump campaign is openly running on plans to thoroughly politicize federal law enforcement and target his enemies. Openly. When actual GOP …

4/ crimes are uncovered or in some cases not even uncovered but simply done in public and widely known we’re treated to lengthy debates about whether open and shut criminal cases should even be charged, then whether Republicans should immediately be pardoned.

5/ The entire high profile political system operates in an open & essentially bottomless world of Republican grievance in which allowing the law to function in its normal manner with respect to high profile Republicans is treated as inherently questionable and sensible people …

6/ agree to pretend that GOP claims of “weaponization” and a “two tiered Justice system” stacked against them isn’t comical and preposterous on its face. None of this is new. Everybody knows this. Every byline in essentially any publication knows this. I was tempted to say …

7/ unless it’s the daily caller or the free beacon or whatever other publication. But the truth is that they know it too. It’s simply worth saying this in the open because the basically endless lying about it starts to seep in after a while, even for sensible people.

8/ A brief addendum: It basically goes without saying that Hunter Biden wouldn't have gotten in any legal hot water at all had it not been for the scrutiny brought on him by his father's prominence and presidential campaign. But "hey, most people get away with it" has ...

9/ never been a legitimate defense. It seems clear that he broke at least some laws or at least that there was enough evidence to bring charges against him. How serious the violations were and whether they can be proven is what we're going to find other. Is that fair?

10/ Well, the law is pretty clear that it is. And again, most people get away with it is simply not a defense or an excuse that our system recognizes. But note that this is precisely the situation with fmr President Trump and his fraud case in NYC. Clearly Trump got away ...

11/ this kind of stuff forever and I'm sure other people have to. It was the scrutiny brought about by his presidential campaign, the Stormy Daniels story and all the stuff we remember that put this in front of first federal and then state prosecutors. And it's pretty ...

12/ clearly a crime just on its face. Note that the guy who helped Trump do it has already done serious jail time. And yet otherwise sensible people routinely treat this is sort of the criminal justice runt of the Trump indictment litter, as though it's somehow ...

13/ ungentlemanly to charge Trump with a crime guys like him usually get away with. For both of them, that's just how life works. Leona Helmsley didn't get charged with anything before she became tabloid fodder either. But again, it's only part of the story for Trump.

14/ And that's because just the normal law functioning is controversial when it's Republicans.

 

 

[Bullneck 19,090]

14 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Wrong.

heard on talk radio the accusation that the special counsel is only a strategy to keep the facts that were coming hard and fast in the dark of a drawn out special counsel process.

can’t make this shit up.

You just did

[Js1 85,337]

6 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

You just did

Hey, it’s just a very liberal interpretation of that guy’s testimony that Comer and Gym Jordan twisted to fit their narrative. Read between the lines! 

[Nivek 16,930]

3 hours ago, Chopper said:

from threaderapp

Josh Marshall @joshtpm

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1690091969412845568.html

Let’s admit that every reporter in DC knows but most won’t say for fear of falling out of favor with the bothsides rules of official DC: there is a two-tiered Justice System. One for Democrats, in which the most exacting focus on conflicts of interest are followed, often going …

2/ well beyond not only what the law or established norms require but sometimes even basic logic. Meanwhile for Republicans most of these rules simply don’t apply. Ever. Does anyone think that a newly installed President Trump in 2025 would leave in place US Attorneys …

3/ investigating matters tied to Trump or the Trump family for years into his administration? The very idea is absurd. In fact the Trump campaign is openly running on plans to thoroughly politicize federal law enforcement and target his enemies. Openly. When actual GOP …

4/ crimes are uncovered or in some cases not even uncovered but simply done in public and widely known we’re treated to lengthy debates about whether open and shut criminal cases should even be charged, then whether Republicans should immediately be pardoned.

5/ The entire high profile political system operates in an open & essentially bottomless world of Republican grievance in which allowing the law to function in its normal manner with respect to high profile Republicans is treated as inherently questionable and sensible people …

6/ agree to pretend that GOP claims of “weaponization” and a “two tiered Justice system” stacked against them isn’t comical and preposterous on its face. None of this is new. Everybody knows this. Every byline in essentially any publication knows this. I was tempted to say …

7/ unless it’s the daily caller or the free beacon or whatever other publication. But the truth is that they know it too. It’s simply worth saying this in the open because the basically endless lying about it starts to seep in after a while, even for sensible people.

8/ A brief addendum: It basically goes without saying that Hunter Biden wouldn't have gotten in any legal hot water at all had it not been for the scrutiny brought on him by his father's prominence and presidential campaign. But "hey, most people get away with it" has ...

9/ never been a legitimate defense. It seems clear that he broke at least some laws or at least that there was enough evidence to bring charges against him. How serious the violations were and whether they can be proven is what we're going to find other. Is that fair?

10/ Well, the law is pretty clear that it is. And again, most people get away with it is simply not a defense or an excuse that our system recognizes. But note that this is precisely the situation with fmr President Trump and his fraud case in NYC. Clearly Trump got away ...

11/ this kind of stuff forever and I'm sure other people have to. It was the scrutiny brought about by his presidential campaign, the Stormy Daniels story and all the stuff we remember that put this in front of first federal and then state prosecutors. And it's pretty ...

12/ clearly a crime just on its face. Note that the guy who helped Trump do it has already done serious jail time. And yet otherwise sensible people routinely treat this is sort of the criminal justice runt of the Trump indictment litter, as though it's somehow ...

13/ ungentlemanly to charge Trump with a crime guys like him usually get away with. For both of them, that's just how life works. Leona Helmsley didn't get charged with anything before she became tabloid fodder either. But again, it's only part of the story for Trump.

14/ And that's because just the normal law functioning is controversial when it's Republicans.

 

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

[Js1 85,337]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

One think I missed about the Hunter Special Counsel is that Weiss is a sitting US Attorney.  That is weird and irregular.  Am I missing something?

Usually, to decouple the special counsel from DOJ, it's someone not currently employed by DOJ.

 

9 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Weiss asked to be special counsel?

34 Republican Senators specifically requested Weiss in 2022. Now they’re acting indignant that he was chosen 

https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Hunter-Biden-Special-Counsel-Letter-FINAL-2.pdf

 

[TwiceHorn 31,471]

9 hours ago, The Royal We said:

Wasn’t Durham a US attorney at the time of his appointment as well? 
 

Doesn’t seem all that irregular. 

Fair point.  He did resign within six months with the change of administration, though.

But, I think you can see my point.  The main purpose of a Special Counsel is to get them outside the chain of command of the DOJ.  It's kind of hard to do that when your "day job" is within the chain of command of the DOJ.

[Horn Dog 9,855]

Expanded 2A for me but not for big dic thee

 

Hunter Biden indicted on federal gun charges

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-indicted-federal-gun-charges-rcna39623

[NAVY 6,740]

Ok cool Hook’em. If hunter is guilty he needs to face a reckoning. 

That said, those fucking trump kids got to be having uneasy feeling hoy 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,870]

still has 0% to do with his father

[Biff Tannen 45,685]

I’ll make sure not to vote for him. For real, this is such small potatoes. 

[Neonmoon 38,129]

1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

Expanded 2A for me but not for big dic thee

 

Hunter Biden indicted on federal gun charges

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hunter-biden-indicted-federal-gun-charges-rcna39623

Good. He committed a crime. He should face the consequences. 

Like every other person

[Celery Man 20,949]

so goddamn obsessed with what hunter is packing

[YGIFS 19,450]

If he's found guilty, then he's guilty IMHO.  

Naive question here, on form 4473-two charges stem from his lying about his addiction/use of crack cocaine, yes?  I totally understand and accept what those questions are on there.  But what's the "cutoff" and who/what determines "addiction"?  I mean, you could be an opiate addict but if you hadn't had any for 10 years, is that same as you're not addicted to coke, but did some that day before and will probably do some after you leave the gun shop.  

And you can get arrested for drug crimes, get out ten years later, do rehab and probation and then be able to buy a gun as a convicted drug felon who longer uses drugs?  

[Celery Man 20,949]

[jimmyjazz 45,953]

I feel as if we could cover all the bases if this thread were simply renamed "Hunter Biden's lap".

[Satchel 6,938]

It’ll be fun watching the media research the last time Hunter’s gun crimes were actually charged.

['stache 21,815]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I feel as if we could cover all the bases if this thread were simply renamed "Hunter Biden's lap".

More like laphog, amirite?

[Anastasis 23,469]

17 minutes ago, Satchel said:

It’ll be fun watching the media research the last time Hunter’s gun crimes were actually charged.

Extremely few. Only a few hundred a year. Which I hope we can all agree we should be enforcing more consistently. If you fuck around on a 4473, you should get the book thrown at you. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

57 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

If he's found guilty, then he's guilty IMHO.  

Naive question here, on form 4473-two charges stem from his lying about his addiction/use of crack cocaine, yes?  I totally understand and accept what those questions are on there.  But what's the "cutoff" and who/what determines "addiction"?  I mean, you could be an opiate addict but if you hadn't had any for 10 years, is that same as you're not addicted to coke, but did some that day before and will probably do some after you leave the gun shop.  

And you can get arrested for drug crimes, get out ten years later, do rehab and probation and then be able to buy a gun as a convicted drug felon who longer uses drugs?  

Here is the prompt:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?  Warning:  The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside. 

[Satchel 6,938]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Extremely few. Only a few hundred a year. Which I hope we can all agree we should be enforcing more consistently. If you fuck around on a 4473, you should get the book thrown at you. 

The gun idolators should be along shortly to agree with you. 

[Celery Man 20,949]

I suppose you could lawfully use a narcotic drug while being addicted to it if it was prescribed.

[hobbes2702 13,033]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

If he's found guilty, then he's guilty IMHO.  

Naive question here, on form 4473-two charges stem from his lying about his addiction/use of crack cocaine, yes?  I totally understand and accept what those questions are on there.  But what's the "cutoff" and who/what determines "addiction"?  I mean, you could be an opiate addict but if you hadn't had any for 10 years, is that same as you're not addicted to coke, but did some that day before and will probably do some after you leave the gun shop.  

And you can get arrested for drug crimes, get out ten years later, do rehab and probation and then be able to buy a gun as a convicted drug felon who longer uses drugs?  

It’s so stupid and such a non crime. Charge him I guess. But talk about a waste of time and money. How many people lie on that form everyday? 

 

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Extremely few. Only a few hundred a year. Which I hope we can all agree we should be enforcing more consistently. If you fuck around on a 4473, you should get the book thrown at you. 

Why? Someone who smokes a joint can’t buy a gun now? 

[The Dog 44,051]

 

[Anastasis 23,469]

11 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The gun idolators should be along shortly to agree with you. 

People who want to enforce laws gun laws should be along shortly to agree with me. I am frankly surprised that you are not one of them. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

10 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Why? Someone who smokes a joint can’t buy a gun now? 

Why enforce the law when it comes to lying on a 4473? Is this real life?

FWIW, I agree that marijuana should be legal federally. And the addiction self-assessment on the 4473 is of course a bit non-sensical. Item g seems altogether stupid, and if you want to lobby to remove it I would not oppose. 

 

21. Answer the following questions by checking or marking either the “yes” or “no” box to the right of the questions: Yes No

a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of all of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring any of the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.  If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer any of the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are only picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a. and may proceed to question 21.b.

b. Do you intend to purchase or acquire any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s), or ammunition, for sale or other disposition to any person described in questions 21(c)-(m), or to a person described in question 21.n.1 who does not fall within a nonimmigrant alien exception?

c. Do you intend to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) or ammunition in furtherance of any felony or other offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense?

d. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?  

e. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?  

f. Are you a fugitive from justice?

g. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?  Warning:  The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

h. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

i. Have you ever been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

j. Are you subject to a court order, including a Military Protection Order issued by a military judge or magistrate, restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?

k. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?

l. Have you ever renounced your United States citizenship?

m. Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States? 

[hobbes2702 13,033]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Why enforce the law when it comes to lying on a 4473? Is this real life?

FWIW, I agree that marijuana should be legal federally. And the addiction self-assessment on the 4473 is of course a bit non-sensical. Item g seems altogether stupid, and if you want to lobby to remove it I would not oppose. 

 

21. Answer the following questions by checking or marking either the “yes” or “no” box to the right of the questions: Yes No

a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of all of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)? Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring any of the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.  If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer any of the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are only picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a. and may proceed to question 21.b.

b. Do you intend to purchase or acquire any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s), or ammunition, for sale or other disposition to any person described in questions 21(c)-(m), or to a person described in question 21.n.1 who does not fall within a nonimmigrant alien exception?

c. Do you intend to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) or ammunition in furtherance of any felony or other offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of more than one year, a Federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking offense?

d. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and whose charge(s) have been referred to a general court-martial?  

e. Have you ever been convicted in any court, including a military court, of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?  

f. Are you a fugitive from justice?

g. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?  Warning:  The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

h. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

i. Have you ever been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?

j. Are you subject to a court order, including a Military Protection Order issued by a military judge or magistrate, restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?

k. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions?

l. Have you ever renounced your United States citizenship?

m. Are you an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States? 

Should have clarified. We are in agreement here.

[wildcat09 29,354]

I can't wait for the SCOTUS decision explaining why actually this is completely in line with gun laws that were in effect at the founding. 

[Brisketexan 105,139]

48 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I can't wait for the SCOTUS decision explaining why actually this is completely in line with gun laws that were in effect at the founding. 

Alito, writing for the majority: "It is a well-known and undisputed historical fact that the founders strongly opposed the Biden Crime Family, and all of their criminal dealings, the evidence of which is so obvious we won't rehash it here.  Thus, they surely would have supported any and all gun laws that would result in conviction of a member of the Biden Crime Family.  Therefore, this law is completely consistent with the standard we set in Bruen, and the law stands and is fully enforceable*, being consistent with the Second Amendment at the time it was written."

" * But only as to members of the Biden Crime Family.  To the extent that anyone might get the bright idea to use it this law against a goodhearted heavily armed redneck, January 6th insurrectionist, or a man just trying to keep his mouthy woman in line because she hasn't learned when he had to hit her multiple times, bitch just won't learn, well, don't get that idea."

Edited September 14, 2023 by Brisketexan

[tx 3 putt 76,958]

On 8/11/2023 at 7:43 PM, Incredulity said:

Wrong.

heard on talk radio the accusation that the special counsel is only a strategy to keep the facts that were coming hard and fast in the dark of a drawn out special counsel process.

can’t make this shit up.

Wasnt this special counsel appointed by the trump DoJ ?

 

[Horn Dog 9,855]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Extremely few. Only a few hundred a year. Which I hope we can all agree we should be enforcing more consistently. If you fuck around on a 4473, you should get the book thrown at you. 

Agree.  Throw the book at him.  Then lets get a “gun formtask force” together of thousands of agents to comb through every single gun owners forms, their criminal records, and their socia media and if they have ever used drugs before, and lied on that form, LOCK THEM UP!!

Edited September 14, 2023 by Horn Dog

[Anastasis 23,469]

This is the part where some of the posters that want more gun laws find ways to contort themselves into not wanting to enforce them. Because reasons. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Anastasis

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

[elfenix 34,240]

i'm a civil liberatarian and i want government agents crawling around in my facetrons looking to see if i lied on a form for a crime that i was never convicted or even charged for and many local jurisdictions removed from their penal codes

[Neonmoon 38,129]

All gun applicants should be tested for narcotic use. 

[tx 3 putt 76,958]

Maga dumbasses need to decide, are they for or against the 2A ?

[Biff Tannen 45,685]

6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Maga dumbasses need to decide, are they for or against the 2A ?

Someone doesn't understand Dunning-Krueger...

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

People who want to enforce laws gun laws should be along shortly to agree with me. I am frankly surprised that you are not one of them. 

That's MAGA after a school shooting. Ya got a good wait ahead. 

[VRHorn 718]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

This is the part where some of the posters that want more gun laws find ways to contort themselves into not wanting to enforce them. Because reasons. 

Nope, throw the book at him. That said, it seems like the 2A "enforce the existing laws" crew should want drug testing before all gun purchases, which I am sure you are down with, right?

Edited September 15, 2023 by VRHorn

[Anastasis 23,469]

3 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

That said, it seems like the 2A "enforce the existing laws" crew should want drug testing before all gun purchases, which I am sure you are down with, right?

I think that you should start a campaign to lobby legislators on this topic and report back with your notes on how that goes.