quote:

Originally posted by nute:
I heard on the news that Biden has ruled out pardoning his son if he gets a jail term. I only caught part of the news item - is this the case?

If it is true that shows integrity and respect for the judicial system.

Trump was giving passes to criminals because Kim Kardashian took her pictures with him!

For a justice system to work correctly it shouldn't matter who you are or who you are related to. Same deal for everyone regardless.

That includes not pardoning your friends or those who were caught breaking the law on your behalf.

It amazes me that people on this forum argue that the system isn't working correctly but then are happy to vote for someone who will pardon his friends and those who broke the law on his behalf...

quote:

Originally posted by nute:
For a justice system to work correctly it shouldn't matter who you are or who you are related to. Same deal for everyone regardless.

That includes not pardoning your friends or those who were caught breaking the law on your behalf.

It amazes me that people on this forum argue that the system isn't working correctly but then are happy to vote for someone who will pardon his friends and those who broke the law on his behalf...

The system is NOT working!

All it has become is a money making machine for lawyers!

Bill and Hitlery should be in jail, so is Trump, and practically every little dickhead in Congress!

They are committing crimes daily!

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Is your memory that short?

Until a honest judge figured out that Hunter was getting a pass on all previous crimes with his earlier plea deal and just a wrist slap, DOJ lawfare was going to be the same old double standard. Prosecute your enemies and walk your friends.

And the system worked. The wrist slap became a felony conviction. Just like the system worked with Trump. He was tried based on NY law and convicted by a jury of his peers. Now he can appeal. The system is working as it should in both instances in my opinion.

With the 5th Circuit holding this charge unconstitutional, I do not have a problem w diversion on the firearm.

If President Biden pardons him. It is the President’s discretion.

If a NY a governor of NY wants to pardon Trump, it is the discretion of NY governor.

I’m a wee bit confused.
No lawfare?
Fani Willis, Bragg whoever the heck is the AG for NY openly campaigned claiming they’d be successful in getting rid of Trump. All three had a target and a campaign promise to fulfill before they even were elected. Look on YouTube and hear that agenda coming out of their mouths. Beria rocks, I guess.

As to appeals, I think that the New York laws, if they allow non-unanimous verdicts (or even non-plurality verdicts), is fatally flawed (at least as the judge applied them in Trumps convictions. Also, the trail judges warning to Trump that he would allow testimony concerning Trumps loss in the earlier civil trial on (not even collateral) extraneous issues, took Trumps option from him to testify. (A reason Weinstein gets a new trial and was clear error.)

I hope the Trump convictions are rapidly overturned, not for Trumps sake, but because of no one is safe if a prosecutor doesn’t have to prove a defined element of a crime (and half-a-dozen other issues)

That said, as to lawfare on DOJ’s part, I’m watching YouTube and Cruz questioning the AG as to why elderly men and women are going to jail for “protesting” abortion clinics and not a soul was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C.§1507 when protesters threatened SCOTUS justices at their homes). Absolutely embarrassing that our AG is such a sniveling whimp and with the full support of the White House, pretends to administer “equal” Justice.

Yep, there’s lawfare.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Is your memory that short?

Until a honest judge figured out that Hunter was getting a pass on all previous crimes with his earlier plea deal and just a wrist slap, DOJ lawfare was going to be the same old double standard. Prosecute your enemies and walk your friends.

And the system worked. The wrist slap became a felony conviction. Just like the system worked with Trump. He was tried based on NY law and convicted by a jury of his peers. Now he can appeal. The system is working as it should in both instances in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I’m a wee bit confused.
No lawfare?
Fani Willis, Bragg whoever the heck is the AG for NY openly campaigned claiming they’d be successful in getting rid of Trump. All three had a target and a campaign promise to fulfill before they even were elected. Look on YouTube and hear that agenda coming out of their mouths. Beria rocks, I guess.

As to appeals, I think that the New York laws, if they allow non-unanimous verdicts (or even non-plurality verdicts), is fatally flawed (at least as the judge applied them in Trumps convictions. Also, the trail judges warning to Trump that he would allow testimony concerning Trumps loss in the earlier civil trial on (not even collateral) extraneous issues, took Trumps option from him to testify. (A reason Weinstein gets a new trial and was clear error.)

I hope the Trump convictions are rapidly overturned, not for Trumps sake, but because of no one is safe if a prosecutor doesn’t have to prove a defined element of a crime (and half-a-dozen other issues)

That said, as to lawfare on DOJ’s part, I’m watching YouTube and Cruz questioning the AG as to why elderly men and women are going to jail for “protesting” abortion clinics and not a soul was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C.§1507 when protesters threatened SCOTUS justices at their homes). Absolutely embarrassing that our AG is such a sniveling whimp and with the full support of the White House, pretends to administer “equal” Justice.

Yep, there’s lawfare.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Is your memory that short?

Until a honest judge figured out that Hunter was getting a pass on all previous crimes with his earlier plea deal and just a wrist slap, DOJ lawfare was going to be the same old double standard. Prosecute your enemies and walk your friends.

And the system worked. The wrist slap became a felony conviction. Just like the system worked with Trump. He was tried based on NY law and convicted by a jury of his peers. Now he can appeal. The system is working as it should in both instances in my opinion.

That old bitch wasn't "protesting", she blockaded a medical facility and denied patients their civil rights.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I’m a wee bit confused.
No lawfare?
Fani Willis, Bragg whoever the heck is the AG for NY openly campaigned claiming they’d be successful in getting rid of Trump. All three had a target and a campaign promise to fulfill before they even were elected. Look on YouTube and hear that agenda coming out of their mouths. Beria rocks, I guess.

As to appeals, I think that the New York laws, if they allow non-unanimous verdicts (or even non-plurality verdicts), is fatally flawed (at least as the judge applied them in Trumps convictions. Also, the trail judges warning to Trump that he would allow testimony concerning Trumps loss in the earlier civil trial on (not even collateral) extraneous issues, took Trumps option from him to testify. (A reason Weinstein gets a new trial and was clear error.)

I hope the Trump convictions are rapidly overturned, not for Trumps sake, but because of no one is safe if a prosecutor doesn’t have to prove a defined element of a crime (and half-a-dozen other issues)

That said, as to lawfare on DOJ’s part, I’m watching YouTube and Cruz questioning the AG as to why elderly men and women are going to jail for “protesting” abortion clinics and not a soul was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C.§1507 when protesters threatened SCOTUS justices at their homes). Absolutely embarrassing that our AG is such a sniveling whimp and with the full support of the White House, pretends to administer “equal” Justice.

Yep, there’s lawfare.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Is your memory that short?

Until a honest judge figured out that Hunter was getting a pass on all previous crimes with his earlier plea deal and just a wrist slap, DOJ lawfare was going to be the same old double standard. Prosecute your enemies and walk your friends.

And the system worked. The wrist slap became a felony conviction. Just like the system worked with Trump. He was tried based on NY law and convicted by a jury of his peers. Now he can appeal. The system is working as it should in both instances in my opinion.

Starting to sound a bit like, when my guy is the target, it's "lawfare", when the other guy is the target, it's the justice system working. Explain to me exactly how Trump has been denied due process. He was charged. He retained the best, presumably, lawyers he could find. He had a six week trial where his lawyers were able to confront the witnesses against him. A jury of twelve convicted him on all counts. He now has the right to appeal, presumably with the best appellate lawyers he can find. He has had a far better shake than most minority defendants get charged with a crime. The system worked in the Hunter Biden case, and the system worked in the Trump case. The difference is that you like the result in the former and dislike the result in the latter.

Hunter was only prosecuted because he was the president's son. Legal experts say that charges for buying a gun while a drug user are rarely brought, and usually result in plea bargains with no or little time served. https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...ly-brought-rcna90191

I wonder who appointed the judge.

Biden should be treated like, like defendants.

The plea bargain blew up bc Tesm Biden took the positions no other charges would be brought. DOJ said no that is not the agreement. Judge said, “I am not signing off on it with this dispute.”

Both sides walked away.

The deal did not fall through bc offering a diversion was out of line. Again, given the status of the law in question by Bruen and the 5th Circuit, I have no issue w a diversion on the gun. I would have had no issue w a plexto probation.

The case has been litigated and judged. We will see how the S. Ct., deals w this statute post Bruen.

I will be interested in seeing if the Fed Circuit applies the 5th Circuit’s reasoning or sets up a conflict w/in the Circuits forcing the S. Ct. to hear the cases.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
At a guess Im presuming this law is to try get the link between guns and drugs diminished. I.E. dealing drugs and have a gun, then you are in deep shit.
If so then I understand it, and I dont think someone with a hi8gher standing in life should be in anyway exempt. Bloody well should know better.

Your logic is correct shanks. But many of our jurisdictions are letting those that commit crimes with guns off and back into society. Wonder why that would be? Legal gun owners here overwhelmingly support serious and harsh penalties for those that commit crimes with firearms?????

Hint!

Lawyers ( the sum of our society) like repeat business.....

Gun grabbers want much higher statistics to support their agenda....

So how do you feel about a convicted felon possessing a gun?

How do I feel about it....

Truthfully I wonder if its right to deprive a non violent felon the right to self defense.

Someone commits a crime "with intent" using a gun? Lock em the hell up!!!

And that case is at the Supreme Court. However, you often tell us enforce the gun laws we already have.

Applying strict scrutiny to the incorporated right to use firearms in common use for the fundamental right to self defense, I agree with you.

Those words are the reason why I agree with your conclusion, but the conclusion requires the predicate (truncated principles) to be more than just an opinion. Especially, in a democratic system where the opinion of one or the few does not win the legislative debate.

It has only been the law since 1968, handguns came little later.

Funny enough, the Fed Law allows a person to apply for reinstatement of the right to the ATF based on criteria in the law. Thus, from a Federal prospective there is legislative relief.

Relief can be granted when circumstances surrounding the conviction, the applicant's record, and reputation are such that the applicant will not likely be dangerous to public safety. The McClure-Volkmer firearms decontrol bill of 1986, drafted by the National Rifle Association, dramatically expands the universe of convicted felons who can once again legally possess firearms. Over the past decade, ATF has processed more than 22,000 applications for relief. Between 1985 and 1990, about one-third of those seeking relief eventually received it. Since 1985, ATF's relief from disability budget has steadily climbed from $2.7 to $4.2 million. The names of those granted relief and their court of conviction must be printed in the Federal Register. ATF estimates that, for those granted relief between 1985 and 1989, 2.6 percent committed crimes again; those most recently granted relief had the lowest recidivism rates. Recidivist crimes included attempted murder, attempted rape, first-degree sexual assault, abduction, child molestation, drug trafficking, and illegal firearms possession. Of the 100 felons, 16 percent of offenses involved crimes of violence, 17 percent drug distribution or possession, and 8 percent firearms violations. Other crimes included abandonment, alcohol-related crimes, assault, burglary, check forgery, concealing an escaped Federal prisoner, counterfeiting, extortion, false statements, game law violations, homicide, illegal campaign contributions, robbery, sexual assault, tax evasion, and theft. Footnotes omitted.

Hunter was selectively prosecuted for something that is almost NEVER prosecuted. And it was because he's Joe's boy & that's all they could come up with after all that GOP "investigating". Millions of people have purchased firearms lying about drug use on their applications, including probably 30-40 % of the NRA. As if none of them ever smoked weed. Prove me wrong.

This would never fly, but it would make a lot of sense for both parties, but Biden in particular. If Biden pardoned both Hunter and Trump for all charged crimes, he'd shut all this bullshit down and the nation could get about its business. Save the taxpayers a lot of money and a lot of politicians (I'm including DA's in that term) a lot of embarrassment, and deflect from any criticism of Biden for pardoning his son. I think that would be a smart move on Biden's part, but he never was a smart even before he went senile. I could care less about Hunter's gun charges, but the tax crimes are a serious concern.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
[QUOTE]
Truthfully I wonder if its right to deprive a non violent felon the right to self defense.

Someone commits a crime "with intent" using a gun? Lock em the hell up!!!

They deprived themselves.
The law is plain and has been the case forever.

My opinion, if your judgement is so bad, so flawed that you earn yourself a felony im thinking you don't have the good judgement to vote or handle a firearm.
If a felon needs self defense they can go buy themselves a stick.

We used to send our fellow citizens that proved themselves unredeemable into exile, today we're discussing giving them guns?

Whose gun/s would bring more as collector pieces at auction, Hunter's or trump's? Assume that donald's guns get surrendered after appeals are denied.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
At a guess Im presuming this law is to try get the link between guns and drugs diminished. I.E. dealing drugs and have a gun, then you are in deep shit.
If so then I understand it, and I dont think someone with a hi8gher standing in life should be in anyway exempt. Bloody well should know better.

Your logic is correct shanks. But many of our jurisdictions are letting those that commit crimes with guns off and back into society. Wonder why that would be? Legal gun owners here overwhelmingly support serious and harsh penalties for those that commit crimes with firearms?????

Hint!

Lawyers ( the sum of our society) like repeat business.....

Gun grabbers want much higher statistics to support their agenda....

So how do you feel about a convicted felon possessing a gun?

How do I feel about it....

Truthfully I wonder if its right to deprive a non violent felon the right to self defense.

Someone commits a crime "with intent" using a gun? Lock em the hell up!!!

So armed crackheads are OK?

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
At a guess Im presuming this law is to try get the link between guns and drugs diminished. I.E. dealing drugs and have a gun, then you are in deep shit.
If so then I understand it, and I dont think someone with a hi8gher standing in life should be in anyway exempt. Bloody well should know better.

Your logic is correct shanks. But many of our jurisdictions are letting those that commit crimes with guns off and back into society. Wonder why that would be? Legal gun owners here overwhelmingly support serious and harsh penalties for those that commit crimes with firearms?????

Hint!

Lawyers ( the sum of our society) like repeat business.....

Gun grabbers want much higher statistics to support their agenda....

So how do you feel about a convicted felon possessing a gun?

How do I feel about it....

Truthfully I wonder if its right to deprive a non violent felon the right to self defense.

Someone commits a crime "with intent" using a gun? Lock em the hell up!!!

So armed crackheads are OK?

since when criminals are asking permission to own and use guns?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Hunter was only prosecuted because he was the president's son. Legal experts say that charges for buying a gun while a drug user are rarely brought, and usually result in plea bargains with no or little time served. https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...ly-brought-rcna90191

I wonder who appointed the judge.

The ATF has like a 98% conviction rate....for normal citizens.

There are offences in this country that are not often prosecuted or if so diversion is given. Like marijuana possession. But not always.
A sensible person still stays away from putting themselves in the position of having to find out.
Someone in the public eye even more so.
I have very little sympathy given hes the master of his own mistake.

The point for those saying that Hunter should not have been tried because we don’t usually charge people for what he did is that the folks who are upset he got charged are the same folks that think we need more laws restricting gun ownership.

If we are not going to enforce the laws, why pass more of them?

quote:

Originally posted by medved:

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:

So armed crackheads are OK?

since when criminals are asking permission to own and use guns?

I won't bother to look up the date, but it's in Hunter's casefile!!

Well, they ask under Fed law they can petition to have their rights restored.

Or every time one completes a portion for expungement.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The point for those saying that Hunter should not have been tried because we don’t usually charge people for what he did is that the folks who are upset he got charged are the same folks that think we need more laws restricting gun ownership.

If we are not going to enforce the laws, why pass more of them?

I have no issue with him being charged. My only concern is the Fed law is of dubious constitutional grounds given the 5th Circuit has invalidated the Fed law in question under Breun.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The point for those saying that Hunter should not have been tried because we don’t usually charge people for what he did is that the folks who are upset he got charged are the same folks that think we need more laws restricting gun ownership.

If we are not going to enforce the laws, why pass more of them?

I'm not saying Hunter should not have been tried. I'm saying why not everybody else? There are millions of people out there who have lied on their applications. That they went after Hunter is 100% political, and if you deny that you are a liar.

Sure, and the plea deal they tried to get through ? That would absolve Hunter of any future crimes he's found to have committed, was not political?

All this, that person was tried for political reasons, that person is a victim of lawfare, etc., is just tiresome. If they committed a crime, try them. If they are a high profile person, even more reason to try them. Send a message. There are more examples than we can list in a week of high profile individuals that were tried, in part, to send a message, e.g., Martha Stewart, Ken Lay, Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin, . . . Sometimes the government concludes that since it is impossible to try everyone, let’s try a few and send a powerful message to others. If they did the crime, stop whining about persecution, political motivation and other crap.

Wesley Snipes did 3 years for tax evasion.
Maybe Hunter can match wesley. Or, he can die like Ken lay and avoid jail time.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
All this, that person was tried for political reasons, that person is a victim of lawfare, etc., is just tiresome. If they committed a crime, try them. If they are a high profile person, even more reason to try them. Send a message. There are more examples than we can list in a week of high profile individuals that were tried, in part, to send a message, e.g., Martha Stewart, Ken Lay, Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin, . . . Sometimes the government concludes that since it is impossible to try everyone, let’s try a few and send a powerful message to others. If they did the crime, stop whining about persecution, political motivation and other crap.

Indeed.

Now we need to see the Epstein list.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Whose gun/s would bring more as collector pieces at auction, Hunter's or trump's? Assume that donald's guns get surrendered after appeals are denied.

They will be owned by some entertainment company as capital assets.
Trump, of course, will charge the company for storage fees.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
At a guess Im presuming this law is to try get the link between guns and drugs diminished. I.E. dealing drugs and have a gun, then you are in deep shit.
If so then I understand it, and I dont think someone with a hi8gher standing in life should be in anyway exempt. Bloody well should know better.

Your logic is correct shanks. But many of our jurisdictions are letting those that commit crimes with guns off and back into society. Wonder why that would be? Legal gun owners here overwhelmingly support serious and harsh penalties for those that commit crimes with firearms?????

Hint!

Lawyers ( the sum of our society) like repeat business.....

Gun grabbers want much higher statistics to support their agenda....

So how do you feel about a convicted felon possessing a gun?

How do I feel about it....

Truthfully I wonder if its right to deprive a non violent felon the right to self defense.

Someone commits a crime "with intent" using a gun? Lock em the hell up!!!

The use of the classification "felon" has been severely abused.
We classify relatively minor crimes as felonies, and it's not right that we do.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
[QUOTE]
Truthfully I wonder if its right to deprive a non violent felon the right to self defense.

Someone commits a crime "with intent" using a gun? Lock em the hell up!!!

They deprived themselves.
The law is plain and has been the case forever.

My opinion, if your judgement is so bad, so flawed that you earn yourself a felony im thinking you don't have the good judgement to vote or handle a firearm.
If a felon needs self defense they can go buy themselves a stick.

We used to send our fellow citizens that proved themselves unredeemable into exile, today we're discussing giving them guns?

This.